| 12.9°C Dublin

Rory McIlroy settles legal case with former agent


Rory McIlroy is suing his former agent

Rory McIlroy is suing his former agent

Rory McIlroy is suing his former agent

GOLFER Rory McIlroy's legal action against his former agent has been settled.

Following day long negotiations yesterday, Paul Gallagher SC, for Mr McIlroy told the Commercial Court today the parties were grateful for the time given yesterday and the entire matter had been settled.

Counsel said no order from the court was required but the case could be put back to February 24 for mention. Such an adjournment is usually so that the court can be advised of the formal settlement.

Mr McIlroy was not in court for today's announcement.

Mr Justice Brian Cregan congratulated all parties on reaching agreement in what had been a long running case.   He wished the sports management companies success with their business in the future and Mr McIlroy too.

In a brief joint statement afterwards, it stated the case between Mr McIlroy and Horizon Sports Management had been "settled to the satisfaction of both parties who wish each other well for the future".

It added: "The parties will be making no further comment".

The hearing was due to get underway yesterday when the judge was told the case was scheduled to last eight weeks and there were many issues involved.

Both sides were seeing if they could narrow those issues and the case was adjourned twice yesterday to allow discussions continue which went on into yesterday evening.

Mr McIlroy attended court yesterday and sat in a reserved bench, along with a number of others, for the morning adjournment and for the one later in the day.

In his action,  the 25-year-old claimed Horizon Sports Management in charged commissions "many times greater" than is standard.

He sued the company, along with Gurteen Ltd and Canovan Management Services, claiming the representation agreement he signed is unenforceable on grounds including undue influence and was improvident.

He claimed he was just 22 when he signed the agreement, without the benefit of legal advice and with no business experience.

The defendants denied the claims and counter-claimed for revenues allegedly outstanding under the agreement for off-course revenues.