Mullins v McFarlane & Anor [2006] EWHC 986 (QB) (05 May 2006)

Mullins v McFarlane & Anor [2006] EWHC 986 (QB) (05 May 2006)

The emails of 28 March 2003 did not establish a threshold for morphine under the Rules of Racing but were an administrative instruction regarding reporting levels; the Appeal Board correctly applied the Rules as they stood at the time of the race, and its decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 986 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: William P Mullins; First Defendant: Nigel McFarlane; Second Defendant: The Jockey Club
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (declaratory Relief, Sporting Disciplinary) / Judgment After Transfer From Administrative Court to Queen's Bench Division, CPR Part 8
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Interpretation of Sporting Rules, Judicial Review of Private Bodies, Retrospective Application of Rules, Thresholds for Prohibited Substances
Sports Law Administrative Law Contract Law Disciplinary Proceedings Interpretation of Sporting Rules Judicial Review of Private Bodies Retrospective Application of Rules Thresholds for Prohibited Substances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William P Mullins

Claimant

Nigel McFarlane

First Defendant

The Jockey Club

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (declaratory Relief, Sporting Disciplinary) / Judgment After Transfer From Administrative Court to Queen's Bench Division, CPR Part 8

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Jockey Club Appeal Board err in law in its interpretation and application of the Rules of Racing regarding morphine thresholds?
  2. 2 Did Dr Webbon's emails of 28 March 2003 establish a de facto threshold for morphine?
  3. 3 Should the reporting limit established after the race have been applied retrospectively to the Claimant's case?

Ratio Decidendi

The emails of 28 March 2003 did not establish a threshold for morphine under the Rules of Racing but were an administrative instruction regarding reporting levels; the Appeal Board correctly applied the Rules as they stood at the time of the race, and its decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for declarations refused
  • No order for retrospective application of reporting limit