by Matthew Austin September-28-2015 in Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Commercial & Business, Regulatory & Administrative Law
Judicial review by the High Court is mainly concerned with ensuring that lower courts and public bodies carry out their functions in accordance with fair procedures.
The Turf Club was established in the late 18th century and was to all intents and purposes a private club which established and enforced the rules of flat racing in Ireland. As identified in the Supreme Court judgment discussed below the Turf Club’s ability to enforce its rules was essentially a matter of private contract law as between the Turf Club and its members.
Context of the case
In 2013 the Turf Club of Ireland notified a jockey and a race horse trainer that the Referrals Committee of the Turf Club would consider allegations of breaches of the Rules of Racing against them in connection with the placing of a bet of £10,000 on Betfair in connection with a horse running in Downpatrick. The bet was that the horse would lose the race. Before the Referrals Committee could commence its work the jockey and race horse trainer in question initiated judicial review proceedings raising a series of challenges to the jurisdiction of the Turf Club to investigate and adjudicate upon the allegations of wrong-doing. While the legal proceedings were ongoing the Referrals Committee continued with its process and concluded that the jockey had breached the rules of racing.
Turning point
Mr Justice O’Donnell, in dealing with the question of whether the Turf Club is amenable to judicial review, traced the history of the Turf Club and the various pieces of legislation passed over the years which allowed the Turf Club to co-exist with a statutory body (most recently Horse Racing Ireland). Mr Justice O’Donnell noted that the Turf Club had not been converted into a statutory body by the Irish Horseracing Industry Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) or by the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act, 2001. However, he did find that the 1994 Act was a turning point in deciding whether the Turf Club was amenable to judicial review. He noted that in Murphy v The Turf Club [1989] I.R. 171 it was decided that judicial review did not lie against the Turf Club since its jurisdiction to carry out its functions arose purely from the fact of voluntary association. Mr Justice O’Donnell went on to decide that although the nature of the Turf Club had not been altered by the 1994 Act, the changes rendered by the 1994 Act in relation to decisions of the Turf Club meant that it is now amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.
The decision is a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.
Full copy of the judgment here.
Back to Full News
Share this article:
About the Author
Matthew Austin
Matthew is a partner in the Commercial & Business team and has considerable expertise in a range of practice areas, having acted for Irish and International clients in domestic and multi-jurisdictional issues. Matthew has advised in civil and administrative law disputes and in regulatory and advisory matters including insolvency/restructuring, IP, defamation and media law, competition and consumer protection and data protection.