Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:02:10.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mare's Nest? The Jockey Club and Judicial Review of Sports Governing Bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Jonathan Morgan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article Jonathan Morgan reveals how the tradition of self-regulation in British sport has raised difficult questions for lawyers. On what basis can the decisions of governing bodies – which are clearly not organs of the state – be challenged? The Jockey Club was a regular subject of legal challenges from the mid 20th Century. An analysis of those cases illuminates the wider debate concerning the basis and extent of judicial review in English law.

Keywords

sports lawjudicial reviewThe Jockey Club
Type
Sports Law
Information
Legal Information Management , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 102 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Footnotes

1 This article follows 1066 and All That to declare that when the Horserace Regulatory Authority (now the British Horseracing Authority) took over the Jockey Club's regulatory functions in 2006, “History came to a full-stop”.

2 Founded 1787; earlier codes have been discovered going back to 1727. Cf. Kerr, RS Rait, The Laws of Cricket (Longmans Green and Co, 1950)Google Scholar.

3 Founded for this purpose (and to remove the more violent aspects of the game as played at Rugby School, Warwickshire) at the Pall Mall Restaurant, London in 1871. The International Rugby Board is now the legislative body.

4 Regina v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909.

5 [1949] 1 All ER 109.

6 (1722) 1 Strange 557, 567.

7 [1966] 2 Q.B. 633.

8 Ibid

9 Ibid at “[Unlike the career] of a jockey or speedway-rider”! Cf. Salmon LJ at 655: boxing “may reasonably be regarded as [an] inherently unsuitable [occupation] for women”.

10 Ibid 650.

11 Ibid 654.

12 11 Co.Rep. 53a.

13 [1966] 2 Q.B. 633, 646. Cf. JAG Griffith, The Politics of the Judiciary (Fontana 1977) 166–170.

14 [1966] 2 Q.B. 633, 653–654. Cf. Davis v. Carew-Pole [1956] 1 W.L.R. 833.

15 Including breach of duties of common calling: for another discrimination case avant la lettre cf. Constantine v. Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] KB 693 (racial discrimination by common innkeeper held unlawful).

16 Ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 000 (citing Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v. Distos Compania Naviera S.A. [1979] A.C. 210). NB Hoffmann LJ's dictum was itself doubted by Jacob J in Newport AFC Ltd v. Football Association of Wales Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 87.

17 Regina v. Jockey Club, ex parte RAM Racecourses (1990) [1993] 2 All ER 225, 000. Cf. Eastham v Newcastle United FC [1964] Ch 413; Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175; McInnes v. Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520.

18 [1983] 2 AC 237.

19 Ibid per Lord Diplock.

20 Cf. Davy v. Spelthorne BC [1984] A.C. 262, 276 per Lord Wilberforce.

21 Cf. Dicey, AV, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)Google Scholar.

22 Cf. Maitland, FW, The Forms of Action at Common Law (1909)Google Scholar.

23 Cf. Allison, JWF, A continental distinction in the common law: A historical and comparative perspective on English public law (Oxford 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Denning, , The Closing Chapter (London 1983) 119Google Scholar.

25 Cf. Clark v. University of Lincolnshire & Humberside [2000] 3 All ER 752.

26 Regina v. East Berks HA, ex parte Walsh [1985] Q.B. 152.

27 Regina v. Lord Chancellor, ex parte Hibbit & Saunders (The Times, 12 March 1993), cf. Regina v. Legal Aid Board, ex parte Donn & Co [1996] 3 All E.R. 1.

28 Law v. National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1302.

29 Council for the Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374.

30 Ibid 407.

31 Regina v. Panel on Takeovers & Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815.

32 Regina v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Massingberd-Mundy (1989) [1993] 2 All ER 207; Regina v. Jockey Club, ex parte RAM Racecourses Ltd (1990) [1993] 2 All ER 225.

33 Cf. n.000 above.

34 Bingham MR noted that the history of the Greyhound Club was “shorter and less glamorous”: Regina v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 918–919.

35 Cf. n.000 above.

36 Cf. n.000 above.

37 Ibid 931.

38 Cf. Regina v. Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, ex parte Wachmann [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1036 (Simon Brown J).

39 Cf. Regina v. Football Association Ltd., ex parte Football League Ltd (The Times, 22 August 1991).

40 Modahl v. British Athletic Federation Ltd (No 2) [2002] 1 WLR 1192, 1207 per Latham LJ.

41 Cf. Clapham, A, Human Rights in the Private Sphere (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

42 E.g. M. Hunt, “The ‘Horizontal Effect’ of the Human Rights Act” [1998] P.L. 423; R. Buxton, “The Human Rights Act and Private Law” (2000) 116 L.Q.R. 48; HWR Wade, “Horizons of Horizontality” (2000) 116 L.Q.R. 217; J Morgan, “Questioning the True Effect of the Human Rights Act” [2002] Legal Studies 259; G Phillipson and A Williams, “Horizontal effect and the constitutional constraint” (2011) 74 MLR 878, etc.

43 Cf. rejection of the argument that the definition of public authority in s.6 HRA meant that Aga Khan should no longer be followed: Regina (Mullins) v. Appeal Board of the Jockey Club [2005] EWHC 2197 (Admin) [36]-[44].

44 Cf. YL v. Birmingham CC and Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd [2007] UKHL 27.

45 Sedley, S, “Public Power and Private Power” in Forsyth, CF (ed) Judicial Review and the Constitution (Hart 2000)Google Scholar.

46 See generally Oliver, D, Common Values and the Public-Private Divide (Cambridge University Press 1999)Google Scholar.

47 D Oliver, “Public law procedures and remedies—do we need them?” [2002] PL 91.

48 See Andenas, M (ed), Judicial Review in Perspective (Kluwer, 2000) 429–430Google Scholar.

49 See e.g. Davies, PS, “Lighting the way ahead: the use and abuse of property rights” in Bright, S (ed), Modern Studies in Property Law (Hart 2011)Google Scholar.

50 Respectively [1898] AC 1; [1895] A. C. 587. See generally M Taggart, Private Property and Abuse of Rights in Victorian England (Oxford University Press 2002).

51 [1979] Ch 344.

52 Contrast Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1029.

53 An example that has not aged well! Cf. Regina (G) v. Nottinghamshire NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 795.

54 Taggart, M, “‘The Peculiarities of the English’: Resisting the Public/Private Law Distinction” in Craig, PP and Rawlings, R (eds), Law and Administration in Europe: Essays in Honour of Carol Harlow (Oxford University Press 2003)Google Scholar.

55 Chapter 10 in Beatson, J and Freidmann, D (eds), Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

56 Paragon Finance v. Nash [2002] 1 WLR 685.

57 Gan Insurance Co v. Tai Ping Insurance Co [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299.

58 Horkulak v. Cantor Fitzgerald International [2005] ICR 402.

59 For an excellent survey of the subsequent developments cf. T Daintith, “Contractual Discretion and Administrative Discretion: A Unified Analysis” (2005) 68 MLR 554.

60 Bradley v. Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB), [62] (original emphasis).

61 Singer v. Jockey Club (Unreported, 1990, Scott J); Colgan v. Kennel Club (Unreported, 2001, Cooke J).

62 Bradley v. Jockey Club [2005] EWCA Civ 1056.

63 [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB), [62].

64 Ibid [37]. See further [41], citing Modahl v. British Athletic Federation Ltd (No 1) (unreported, 1997, Court of Appeal) transcript pp.17–18 per Lord Woolf MR.

65 Regina (Mullins) v. Appeal Board of the Jockey Club [2005] EWHC 2197 (Admin) (Stanley Burnton J).

66 Mullins v. McFarlane [2006] EWHC 986 (QB) (Stanley Burnton J).

67 Cf. Mullins [2005] EWHC 2197 (Admin), [31].

68 Cf. J Morgan, “Against judicial review of discretionary contractual powers” [2008] LMCLQ 230.

69 Cf. SJ Whittaker, “Judicial Review in Public Law and in Contract Law: The example of ‘Student Rules'” (2001) 21 OJLS 193.