Racing UK Ltd v Doncaster Racecourse Ltd & Anor

Racing UK Ltd v Doncaster Racecourse Ltd & Anor

The Court found that the factual matrix, industry knowledge, and the conduct of the Metropolitan Borough Council established that Mr Sanderson and DRL were held out as having ostensible authority to bind the Council. Racing UK intended to contract with the owner of the racecourse, and the Council's representations and actions led Racing UK to reasonably believe that Mr Sanderson had authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf. Therefore, the Council was bound by the agreement.

Parties
Claimant/1st Respondent: Racing UK Limited; 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent: Doncaster Racecourse Limited; 2nd Defendant/appellant: Doncaster Metropolitan District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Agency by Representation, Media Rights, Contractual Interpretation
Contract Law Agency Law Ostensible Authority Agency by Representation Media Rights Contractual Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Racing UK Limited

Claimant/1st Respondent

Doncaster Racecourse Limited

1st Defendant/2nd Respondent

Doncaster Metropolitan District Council

2nd Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Doncaster Metropolitan District Council was bound by the letter agreement of 25 March 2004 through ostensible authority of Doncaster Racecourse Limited and Mr Sanderson
  2. 2 Whether Racing UK Limited intended to contract with Doncaster Racecourse Limited as principal or as agent for the Council
  3. 3 Whether the Council held out Mr Sanderson or DRL as having authority to bind it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the factual matrix, industry knowledge, and the conduct of the Metropolitan Borough Council established that Mr Sanderson and DRL were held out as having ostensible authority to bind the Council. Racing UK intended to contract with the owner of the racecourse, and the Council's representations and actions led Racing UK to reasonably believe that Mr Sanderson had authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf. Therefore, the Council was bound by the agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay respondents' costs
  • Parties to agree quantum of costs; disagreements to be submitted to Buxton LJ for summary assessment