McKeown v British Horseracing Authority

McKeown v British Horseracing Authority

The High Court rejected all grounds of challenge to the Panel and Appeal Board's findings of fact and process, holding that the findings were reasonably open to the tribunal, the process was fair despite missing video and lack of expert evidence, and there was no actual or apparent bias. However, the Court held that the Appeal Board erred in not remitting the matter to the Panel for reconsideration of the finding that Mr McKeown supplied horse-related information for lay betting, in light of new evidence about the date Whiting's horses left Blockley's yard, which could realistically affect that finding and potentially the penalty. The matter was ordered to be remitted to the Panel for...

Parties
Claimant: Dean McKeown; Defendant: British Horseracing Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (supervisory Jurisdiction Over Domestic Sporting Tribunal) / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; matter remitted to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of the finding that Mr McKeown supplied horse-related information for lay betting, in light of new evidence regarding the date Whiting's horses left Blockley's yard.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice, Standard of Review for Sporting Tribunals, Bias (actual and Apparent), Interpretation of Sporting Rules, Remittal for Rehearing, Evidence (video, Expert)
Sports Law Administrative Law Judicial Review (supervisory Jurisdiction) Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice Standard of Review for Sporting Tribunals Bias (actual and Apparent) Interpretation of Sporting Rules +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean McKeown

Claimant

British Horseracing Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (supervisory Jurisdiction Over Domestic Sporting Tribunal) / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Panel and Appeal Board's findings of fact against Mr McKeown were perverse or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the process was unfair due to missing video evidence and lack of expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Panel and Appeal Board erred in law in their construction of Rule 201(v)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court rejected all grounds of challenge to the Panel and Appeal Board's findings of fact and process, holding that the findings were reasonably open to the tribunal, the process was fair despite missing video and lack of expert evidence, and there was no actual or apparent bias. However, the Court held that the Appeal Board erred in not remitting the matter to the Panel for reconsideration of the finding that Mr McKeown supplied horse-related information for lay betting, in light of new evidence about the date Whiting's horses left Blockley's yard, which could realistically affect that finding and potentially the penalty. The matter was ordered to be remitted to the Panel for...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; matter remitted to the Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of the finding that Mr McKeown supplied horse-related information for lay betting, in light of new evidence regarding the date Whiting's horses left Blockley's yard.

Orders

  • Remit the matter to the original Disciplinary Panel for reconsideration of the finding that Mr McKeown supplied horse-related information for lay betting, and any consequential reconsideration of penalty, in light of the new evidence and argument regarding the date Whiting's horses left Blockley's yard.
  • All other grounds of challenge dismissed.