Moran & Lynch & Butterly v O'Sullivan and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Carroll |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] IEHC 35 |
| Docket Number | 159 JR/2003 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 18 March 2003 |
[2003] IEHC 35
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
IRISH HORSE RACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S39
HORSE & GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2001 SCHED PARA 6
IRISH HORSE RACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S2
HORSE & GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2001 S5
HORSE & GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2001 S8
BOLGER V THE TURF CLUB 2001 ILRM 250
SOLICITORS ACT 1954, RE 1960 IR 293
O LAOIRE V MEDICAL COUNCIL UNREP KEANE 27.1.1995 2000/21/7913
STEFAN V MIN JUSTICE 2002 2 ILRM 134
CORRIGAN V IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1977 IR 317
Synopsis:
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Rules of club
Turf club committee - Decision - Horse racing - Committee suspended race horse from racing - Whether committee acted ultra vires - Whether suspension of horse constituted punishment imposed on owner - Irish Horse Racing Industry Act, 1994 - Greyhound Racing Act, 2001 (2003/159JR - Carroll J - 18/03/2003)
Moran v O'Sullivan
The respondents made a decision to suspend the applicant’s horse, David’s Lad. The applicants were granted leave to apply for judicial review of the decision on grounds that the committee acted ultra vires in suspending David’s Lad in the absence of any evidence of wrong doing on the part of the applicants and that the applicants were entitled to be notified of and be present and/or represented at the Acting Stewards inquiry.
Held by Carroll J. in dismissing the application that the disqualification of a horse was not a punishment imposed on an owner. It would make nonsense of the rule designed to keep racing fair if a horse could not be suspended unless the owner had been in fault in some way. The owners had been given the opportunity to make representations to the committee.
The Appeals and Referral Committee (the Committee) being the first, second and third respondents are a committee of the Turf Club, represented by the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents as trustees. The Committee made a decision on 3rd March 2003 to suspend the Applicants' horse, David's Lad from competitive racing from 4th March 2003 for 42 days. This decision was made following an appeal from the decision of the Acting Stewards at Naas Racecourse on 23rd February 2003 to suspend the horse from competitive racing for the same period from 23rd February 2003 as a result of the poor performance of the horse in a competitive race at Naas on the same day. The horse was last the whole way round in a field of eight. The trainer, Mr. A. J. Martin was fined £1,000 and the jockey, Mr. T. Murphy, was suspended for seven race days. They are not challenging those penalties and are not part of this application.
The Applicants applied for and were granted liberty by order of Mr. Justice Quirke on 6th March 2003 to bring judicial review proceedings impugning the decision of the committee on the grounds that:-
1. The committee actedultra vires in suspending David's Lad in the absence of any evidence of wrong doing on the part of the applicants. The Rules do not impose strict or vicarious liability on the Applicants with regard to wrongful conduct of the trainer or jockey.
An additional ground was added at the hearing of these proceedings, namely, that the Applicants were entitled to be notified of and be present and/or represented at the Acting Stewards inquiry on 23rd February 2003. Since they were not, it was
2. it deprived them of a two tier inquiry procedure as provided under the Rules, namely, an initial hearing before the Acting Stewards and a right of appeal to the Committee.
The Respondents in their statement of opposition claim that Mr. A. J. Martin the trainer was appointed by the Applicants as their authorised agent pursuant to the Rules and the Applicants are vicariously liable for his actions. The decision of the Committee was based on the finding that the racecourse was used as a training ground. It was not based on any finding of wrong doing against the applicants. The suspension of David's Lad was a consequence of the findings against Mr. Martin and Mr. Murphy under Rule 14 (iii) and Rule 87 (x). The suspension is not a sanction imposed on the owner. Any prejudicial effect is coincidental. The Applicants undertook to be bound by the Rules in force from time to time.
With regard to the additional ground allowed to the Applicants, the Respondents in their amended statement of opposition denied the Applicants were entitled to be present at the Acting Stewards inquiry. The Applicants were not responsible for the running of the horse. They were represented by the trainer, their authorised agent, Mr. Martin.
The Respondents deny that the parties entitled to appeal under Rule 256 are necessarily required either under the rules or by natural justice to be notified of and to attend the stewards inquiry.
The Applicants exercised their right of appeal without condition or objection concerning non-appearance at the stewards inquiry. They are therefore now estopped from raising their non attendance at the inquiry in these proceedings, which were only taken because their appeal was unsuccessful.
The statutory framework in which the respondents operate was outlined in my judgment on the interlocutory application and bears repeating here.
The Racing Regulatory Body was established under Section 39 of the Irish Horse Racing Industry Act1994(the 1994 Act) as amended by the Horse and Greybound Racing Act2001(the 2001 Act).
The Racing Regulatory Body is defined in Section 2 of the 1994 Act and means
(b) The Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee in relation to national hunt racing and
(c) Both in relation to horse racing generally.
Its general functions are set out in paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the 2001 Act including to be solely and independently responsible for making and enforcing the Rules of Racing and also adequate on-course integrity services.
The Rules of Racing are defined in Section 2 of the 1994 Act and means
(a) in relation to flat racing the Rules of Racing as laid down by the Irish Turf Club and
(b) in relation to national hunt racing the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Rules as laid down by the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee.
The latter are the rules relevant in this case (referred to as the Rules).
"Integrity services" are defined in Section 2 and mean "those services at a racecourse provided at a race fixture or related to the running of it which are operated by or on behalf of the Racing Regulatory Body for the purpose of enforcing discipline and ensuring that horses are run fairly and properly."
The 2001 Act, Section 5, set up a new body known as Horse Racing Ireland which took over some of the functions of the Turf Club as from the 1st of May 2002. The general functions of the body are set out at Section 8.
Under the Rules (Rule 146) a person has to have a trainer's licence to train a horse belonging to someone who is not a relation (as defined) in order that the horse is qualified to run in races under the Rules.
A formal application for permission to train a horse has to be made to Horse Racing Ireland (Rule 148(vi)). Mr. Martin is the permitted trainer of the horse.
The owner of a horse must register as owner with Horse Racing Ireland (Rule 119). Where the horse is owned jointly by a syndicate one of the owners must be registered as "registered agent" entitled to exercise the powers of an owner (Rule 122(vi)). Mr. Edward Moran, the first named Applicant, was registered 21st November 1999 as the registered agent of the syndicate. He applied on 28thNovember 1999 for owner registration, undertaking to be bound by the Rules.
On registration of a horse, the owner completes an "authority to act" appointing an authorised agent to deal with the horse for the purposes of the Rules including the training and all aspects of running the horse. Mr. A. J. Martin is the authorised agent of the applicants having been appointed by Mr. Moran the registered agent on 30th November 1999.
Rule 212 provides "Every horse which runs in a race shall be run on its merits
(i) The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure his/her horse is given a full opportunity to run or of obtaining the best possible place."
In the Instructions Section of the Rules at p. 209 under the heading "Running", it states "The Stewards of the Turf Club and INHS Committee wish to draw attention to Rule 212 and they warn all trainers and permit holders that they will not tolerate the practice of running horses in races in a condition to preclude their chances of winning and that they must not ran horses in races solely for the purpose of giving them a school. The racecourse must not be used as a training ground and all horses, including those having their first run, must be ridden to attain the best possible place and they must not be deliberately eased before passing the winning post without good reason. Attention is also drawn to Rules 20 (xii) and 87 (x). Offenders shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14.
Rule 13 provides "the Stewards have power to regulate control take cognisance of and adjudicate upon the conduct of all officials and all owners, nominators, trainers, riders, grooms and other person attendant on horses and all persons frequenting the stands or other places used for the purpose of the meeting."
Rule 14 (i) deals with the power of the Stewards of a meeting to punish at their discretion (a) any person subject to their control with a fine not exceeding £4,000 for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowling v an Bord Altranais
...issue as to a lack of awareness of the significance of a legal point, as arises in the present case. 43 The case of Moran v. O'Sullivan [2003] IEHC 35 involved racehorse owners who sought to complain in judicial review proceedings about the fact that they had not been notified of or entitl......
-
O'Connell v The Turf Club
...nature permitted by Article 37. Held by O”Donnell J that he would uphold the trial judge”s decision that Moran & Ors v O”Sullivan & Ors [2003] IEHC 35 and other authorities show a consistent view that the changes introduced by the 1994 Act have the effect of rendering the decisions of the T......