McKeown v British Horseracing Authority [2010] EWHC 508 (QB) (12 March 2010)

McKeown v British Horseracing Authority [2010] EWHC 508 (QB) (12 March 2010)

The court held that the Appeal Board erred in failing to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of whether the claimant was in breach of Rule 201(v) by supplying horse-related information, in light of new arguments and evidence. The factual corrections suggested by the defendant did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 508 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Dean McKeown; Defendant: British Horseracing Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (civil) / Judgment Following Submissions on Draft Judgment and Requests to Reconsider Findings
Outcome
Application to reverse draft judgment refused; original decision maintained.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Judicial Review of Sporting Bodies, Correction of Draft Judgments, Remittal to Disciplinary Panels
Sports Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice Supervisory Jurisdiction Judicial Review of Sporting Bodies Correction of Draft Judgments +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean McKeown

Claimant

British Horseracing Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (civil) / Judgment Following Submissions on Draft Judgment and Requests to Reconsider Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appeal Board erred in failing to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of findings against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the court should reverse its draft judgment in light of factual corrections and further submissions
  3. 3 Whether the findings against the claimant under Rule 201(v) and Rule 157 were lawfully and fairly made

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Appeal Board erred in failing to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of whether the claimant was in breach of Rule 201(v) by supplying horse-related information, in light of new arguments and evidence. The factual corrections suggested by the defendant did not materially affect the substance of the court's decision or reasoning. The court declined to reverse its draft judgment, finding no error or injustice warranting such a course. The findings of the Panel were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, and the court's supervisory jurisdiction did not justify further intervention.

Court Disposition

Application to reverse draft judgment refused; original decision maintained.

Orders

  • The court declined to reverse its draft judgment.
  • The matter should have been remitted to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of findings regarding the supply of horse-related information under Rule 201(v).