Three plaintiffs are entitled to their respective portions of 20% of the net proceeds from the sale of racehorse Tashzara, the High Court has concluded, after finding that their original agreement with the horse’s owner was later amended.
In a judgment delivered on 5 June 2015, Mr Justice Keane found that an agreement made in January or February 2009 was, on the balance of probabilities, as the plaintiffs described it. The first plaintiff was to manage the horse for a 10% interest, while the second and third plaintiffs were each to receive 5% for riding and caring for her. The first defendant was to pay €700 a month towards expenses.
The judge found, however, that after Tashzara ran at Navan, the plaintiffs consented to changing the agreement. They would receive their respective shares of the eventual sale price rather than ownership interests in the horse itself. The judgment records that the plaintiffs did not dispute that they had no entitlement to the horse’s prize money or to the value of her progeny.
The case concerned a chestnut mare who was in poor condition and had not been broken in when the first plaintiff took her to Canty’s yard at the Curragh in early 2009. The plaintiffs said they conditioned, broke in, trained and cared for her in return for a combined 20% ownership stake. The defendants denied that agreement, saying the first plaintiff was to prepare and train the horse for €700 a month, inclusive of expenses. They relied on an asserted industry practice of paying a trainer 10% of a horse’s sale price if it was sold from that trainer’s yard.
Tashzara ran three races in 2009 while at the yard, finishing third at Beverly, second at Navan and sixth at Newmarket. She was later sent to California, where she raced six times and earned prize money, before returning to Ireland. The court was told she sold for £315,000 at Tattersalls’ December Mare Sales; €61,189 of the net proceeds was being held in an account jointly controlled by the parties’ solicitors pending the case.
The judge said the plaintiffs’ work had significantly contributed to the horse’s condition, racing performances and circumstances of the profitable sale. He found the industry-practice argument added little, noting that the first plaintiff was not a registered trainer and the agreement had no written record or supporting paperwork.
The judgment resolves the disputed contractual entitlement described in the source. It does not specify a final payment allocation among the plaintiffs or describe a further order directing release of the retained funds.