THE Hornets had their first victory of the new season in London's High Court on Thursday.
The club saw off Aylesbury Town FC, which had sought damages from Watford FC for recruiting a star striker without paying a penny.
Aylesbury wanted £150,000 compensation because, it alleged, Watford induced Mr Lee Cook, 17 at the time, to breech his Aylesbury contract in November last year.
But Mr Justice Poole ruled that the contract was unenforceable because it broke laws covering apprentice agreements and Football Association rules on signing up minors.
He said Mr Cook's contract 'imposed extremely onerous terms, which severely curtailed Lee's freedom to pursue his football career for up to three and a half years'.
The contract purported to prevent him from playing for any other club or in any other sport unless Aylesbury was paid compensation.
It declared that Mr Cook's wages should depend on 'the will of the employer', which, Mr Justice Poole ruled, was against apprenticeship law.
Mr Mark Warwick, acting for Aylesbury, said Mr Cook was a 'promising youngster' when he joined Aylesbury in February last year.
He told the court: 'It was explained by the club at the time that Aylesbury would not seek to stop Lee moving to a major club, although such a move would require compensation to be paid to Aylesbury.
'Lee attracted attention from several leading clubs, including Wimbledon, West Ham, QPR, Brentford and Watford.
'True to its word, Aylesbury facilitated the other clubs' interest in Lee, in the natural expectation that an interested club would pay to obtain Lee's release from his contract.'
Lawyers acting for Watford FC argued that Aylesbury put Mr Cook under contract solely to be able to demand a fee when he moved to a bigger club and that the contract was invalid and would not even have allowed Mr Cook to play for Aylesbury.
Mr Andrew Hunter, for Watford, said Football Association rules meant clubs were not generally allowed to contract under-18's who were in full-time education. Only specified types of training contracts were allowed under the rules and the contract Aylesbury signed with Mr Cook was not certified by the Football Association.
He said: 'This player's contract was a complete impossibility and could never have come into force. This contract could never be registered.
'The object was not to benefit Lee Cook. Aylesbury wanted it because it regarded him as an asset and wanted to sell him.'
He argued that this amounted to 'contractual kidnapping'. Aylesbury had, in effect, sought 'to demand a ransom' when bigger clubs took an interest in Cook.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article