In bombshell court documents, Sachi Dade says the club and its officials leaked fake and sensitive information about her to other AFL players’ partners during an online meeting one week after police conducted a welfare check at the couple’s home.
Federal Court papers reveal that Ms Dade reported the club to the AFL and its integrity unit but her concerns were “not resolved”.
She also feared one of the club’s board members was trying to “apply pressure” on her by having secret talks with May’s lawyers about the case on the very same day the Melbourne Football Club was due to respond to her claims.
The legal battle revolves around a Microsoft Teams meeting with the partners of 15 players on February 4.
The Herald Sun was earlier told the 14-minute virtual meeting was held to inform families of the “challenging” circumstances over May’s departure from the club.
He formally left MFC on March 1.
Ms Dade says during this meeting, the club’s representatives “shared information which was private, confidential and sensitive” to both her and May, “much of which was false, inaccurate or misleading”.
She’s demanding an apology and damages from the club, its coach Steven King and general manager Alan Richardson for a “serious invasion” of her privacy, which she says has caused “significant” harm to both her and her family.
“The breaches have caused Ms Dade emotional distress, embarrassment, psychiatric harm and anguish,” Federal Court documents, released to the Herald Sun on Monday, state.
“Ms Dade has also been subject to rumours, personal ridicule and humiliation by members of the public.”
Police conducted a welfare check at the couple’s home on January 29, where no arrests were made or charges laid.
The police visit was reported in the Herald Sun the next day.
On February 4, Ms Dade claims the club committed its first privacy breach by releasing a statement confirming police attended May’s home.
She says by this date, Melbourne Football Club had “divulged various information about the Home Visit and related confidential, personal and sensitive information of Ms Dade and Mr May to the AFL”.
This, she says, was the second breach.
Also on February 4, the club invited players’ partners to the Teams meeting scheduled for the next day.
The meeting was to “have a conversation surrounding a matter which was said to impact the football program”, as well as introduce the partners to Richardson, King and then-chief executive Paul Guerra.
At 7.30pm on February 5, players’ partners met online where private information was allegedly disclosed.
Details of what was said has been subject to a confidentiality order on the court file.
“Representatives of the MFC acknowledged that the information being shared was private and sensitive, and asked attendees not to further divulge the information,” court documents state.
“Representatives of the MFC acknowledged that they were not aware of all of the facts surrounding the incidents being discussed,” material continued.
“It was unclear why the private and sensitive information was being shared with the attendees by representatives of the MFC.”
This, Ms Dade claims, was the third breach.
Ms Dade said she wasn’t contacted about the public statement, the meeting, or asked for her comments or input, and afterwards, she “raised her concerns and complaints about the actions and inactions” of the club and its agents with Melbourne Football Club, the AFL Players Association, the AFL and the AFL integrity unit.
“The responses by the MFC and the AFL were slow and the concerns and complaints were not resolved,” she claims.
Court documents state Ms Dade’s lawyers sent the club, King and Richardson an offer to resolve the privacy dispute on April 29, with a request to respond by May 13.
Instead, the club’s lawyers requested a two-week extension.
Meanwhile, on or about May 13, MFC board member Geoff Porz “contacted Mr May’s solicitors to discuss (Ms Dade’s) claims”.
Ms Dade claimed this “was an attempt to communicate with (her) and apply pressure to (her) through her partner, which demonstrated a continued lack of insight and awareness of the critical issues which had caused the Applicant to raise complaint”.
The next day, on May 14, Ms Dade’s lawyers agreed to give MFC an extension of time to respond, and flagged their concerns about the Porz communication, and that “our client believes that this may be an attempt to influence and pressure her”.
Ms Dade filed her action in the Federal Court on May 22.
According to a concise statement on the file, Ms Dade claims “a serious invasion of privacy” by the club on three occasions, and by King and Richardson on one occasion.
She wants the club, King and Richardson to declare that they “have caused a serious invasion” of her privacy.
She is also seeking an apology from all parties, damages including exemplary damages, interest and costs.
The matter will return to court for a case management hearing on September 11.