MacGill sues Cricket Australia

Stuart MacGill is borne aloft as he exits the Test arena for the last time Getty Images

Former Test legspinner Stuart MacGill is suing Cricket Australia for more than $2.6 million. In a writ filed with the Victorian Supreme Court on Monday, MacGill has claimed that Cricket Australia failed to pay him more than $1.6 million in match payments and prize money, and he is also claiming more than $984,000 in interest, plus costs.

In the writ, MacGill claimed that during his years as a contracted player with Cricket Australia from 1998-2007, CA had paid him in accordance with their injury policy at times when he was unable to play due to injury. He claimed that Cricket Australia had failed or neglected to pay him injury payments over a two-year period from May 2008, when he was unable to play Test cricket due to injury.

In the writ, he claimed he had been offered a one-year contract by Cricket Australia for 2008-09 before he was injured. MacGill retired from Test cricket midway through the 2008 tour of the West Indies, where he was playing in the baggy green for the first time since having surgery in December 2007 to deal with carpal-tunnel syndrome in his right wrist.

MacGill's writ states that in May 2008 he consulted the Cricket Australia team manager and captain about injuries that he claimed included numbness and pins and needles in both hands, swelling and pain in the right knee, and shoulder pain and numbness.

"The team medical officer was not available to be consulted by MacGill or notified during the Test match as he was not in attendance due to his own personal illness," the writ said.

MacGill claimed that he was advised to return home by Cricket Australia, and that Cricket Australia did not pay him what he was owed under his contract.

It is not the first time a former player has taken Cricket Australia to court. Fast bowler Nathan Bracken launched legal action in 2011 over what he claimed was CA's failure to provide competent medical advice about a knee injury, and he sought compensation for lost wages and potential earnings. That case has not been settled.