The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application by bookmaker Brian Graham challenging a decision that upheld new rules for allocating betting pitches in premium areas at racecourses. The court held that the Pitch Tribunal’s decision arose from private contractual arrangements and was not amenable to judicial review.
The application sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 16 December 2016 and other relief. The dispute centred on Rule 18(b) of the 2016 Racecourse Executives’ Seniority and Pitch Rules, which provided for pitches in premium areas to be allocated through a process involving seniority and rotation. Graham argued that the rules were invalid because the chairman of the Irish National Professional Bookmakers Association (INPBA) had not signed them, and challenged the tribunal’s procedures and composition.
The court described the Pitch Tribunal as an ad hoc dispute-resolution body created under rules agreed by the INPBA and the Association of Irish Racecourses (AIR). It found the tribunal had no statutory role. Horse Racing Ireland (HRI), a statutory body, had implemented the revised rules after receiving confirmation that both associations had approved them. The court said HRI had made no separate determination for Graham to challenge and was not required to investigate whether the associations had followed their own internal procedures.
The judgment records that Graham attended the INPBA’s February 2016 extraordinary general meeting, where the proposed rules were approved, and that AIR approved them at its AGM the following month. The court found the approval had not been withdrawn or replaced. It also noted that the association’s internal rules and constitution were not before the court, and that no evidence established that the chairman’s signature was required to validate the rules.
The tribunal had rejected Graham’s appeal in December 2016, finding no requirement for the rules to be signed and that the procedures for adopting them had been followed. It declined to suspend Rule 18. The High Court’s ruling addressed preliminary objections to the judicial review application; it did not decide the merits of any separate contractual claim. The judgment said a contractual route might in principle have been available, without expressing a view on whether such a claim would succeed.
The court concluded that the tribunal’s determination was made in a private-law setting and dismissed the application as misconceived. The judgment does not state a separate order on costs.