Ex-Adelaide United boss Piet van der Pol ‘under no obligation’ to return $50k BMW, court told

Adelaide United’s former boss is kicking his legal battle with the club into extra time, saying he’s not obliged to return its BMW and questioning his dismissal.

Former Adelaide United chairman Piet van der Pol. Picture: Sarah Reed

Adelaide United’s former boss is under “no obligation” to return its laptop, phone or $50,000 BMW and may challenge the legality of his dismissal from the top job, a court has heard.

On Monday, the Supreme Court was told Piet van der Pol is also preparing to resurrect his claim for $684,000 in allegedly “unpaid wages” – this time as a lawsuit.

Mr van der Pol’s new counsel told Judge Graham Dart he had heard “only one side of the story” so far about the end of his client’s tenure with the Reds.

When Judge Dart asked if that meant Mr van der Pol intended to contest his April 2023 “parting of the ways” with the club, his lawyer said that was a possibility.

“My instructions are fairly limited at the moment and so I don’t want to say too much,” he said.

“We will be advancing a counterclaim against the club, there will be an amount of money sought and there will be additional pleadings.

“We do not concede that there’s any obligation to return the car.”

Earlier this year, Mr van der Pol issued the club with a statutory demand for $684,000 it declined to pay, saying it owed him no money.

It argued, and the court accepted, his actual employer had been Global Football Operations in Hong Kong, which paid him in Chinese currency via the Reds’ bank account.

Mr van der Pol, the court heard, says he is under no obligation to return the club’s property. Picture: David Mariuz

Mr van der Pol filed no sworn evidence in support of his statutory demand, nor was he represented by counsel when the matter concluded.

The club subsequently claimed Mr van der Pol was selling off his Australian assets and refusing to return the car, phone and laptop he had been issued with during his tenure.

On Monday, counsel for Adelaide United said her client had incurred $52,918.70 in legal costs battling Mr van der Pol’s statutory demand.

She said attempts to settle that debt with Mr van der Pol, out of court, had failed and her client would lodge a lawsuit seeking that amount in damages.

Judge Dart asked who was “still driving the Beemer”, and the club’s counsel replied that Mr van der Pol was.

“So Mr van der Pol says there’s no present requirement for him to return the BMW?” he asked.

Mr van der Pol’s counsel replied: “Yes.”

Judge Dart said that, given the position of each party, he would adjourn the matter to allow them to prepare court documents in support of their claims, defences and counterclaims.

He ordered that occur within 21 days ahead of a hearing in November.