The Supreme Court held that the Turf Club was amenable to judicial review because its role as the Racing Regulatory Body for flat racing derived from statute and its disciplinary decisions could affect people’s livelihoods. It dismissed the appellants’ claims on their merits, however, and granted none of the reliefs they sought.
The appeal was brought by jockey Edward O’Connell and licensed trainer James Lambe against the Turf Club. The case arose from allegations concerning a September 2011 race at Downpatrick and a £10,000 lay bet placed with bookmaker Betfair. The allegations against O’Connell included that he had agreed to ride the horse, Yachvilli, below its best, or to give it a schooling ride, and that he had failed to give it a full opportunity to win. These were allegations considered by the Turf Club; the Supreme Court judgment did not determine whether they were true.
The High Court had dismissed the judicial review application in April 2014. It held that the Turf Club was subject to judicial review and that the applicants had standing, but rejected their substantive claims. The Turf Club appealed those findings by a notice to vary, while O’Connell appealed the parts of the decision adverse to him.
Giving judgment on 25 June 2015, Mr Justice Hardiman said the Turf Club’s statutory status and its role in regulating racing brought its relevant decisions within the scope of judicial review. Jockeys such as O’Connell had no effective choice but to obtain a Turf Club licence to work in flat racing, and the Club’s disciplinary powers could deprive them of their livelihood. The judgment also said the Club’s adjudication could arguably amount to an administration of justice, while leaving that constitutional question for the substantive claims.
That conclusion did not resolve the appeal in the appellants’ favour. The Court rejected the argument that the Rules of Racing were delegated legislation made under Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution. It also found no basis to grant relief on the claim that the Club’s disciplinary process amounted to an unconstitutional administration of justice, referring to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in MacDonald v Bord na gCon. The judgment said no particular complaint had been made about the investigation or procedures used in the case.
The Court dismissed the claims on their merits. The judgment did not make findings on the truth of the racing allegations; its decision addressed the availability of judicial review and the legal grounds advanced for relief.