Bradley v Jockey Club
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BUXTON,the Master of the Rolls,LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1056 |
| Docket Number | A2/2004/2184 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 July 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1056
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Phillips)
Lord Justice Buxton
Lord Justice Scott Baker
A2/2004/2184
MR I GLEN QC AND MR P BARRIE (instructed by Ashfords Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR M WARBY QC (instructed by Charles Russell) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal from the judgment of Richards J dated 1st October 2004 (the neutral citation number of which is [2004] EWHC 2164 QB) dismissing a claim for an injunction and damages for breach of contract. The claim was brought by the former jockey Graham Bradley against the Jockey Club in respect of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him.
Permission to appeal was granted by the Vice Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt and Clarke LJ on a renewed oral application on 16th February 2005, on the ground that there was a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to clarify the correct approach of the court in determining the increasing number of claims of this kind. I would like to say at the outset that the judgment of Richards J—which was reserved and which extends to 119 paragraphs—is of the highest quality. I am surprised that it has not been reported at least in one of the specialist law reports.
The Facts
Mr Bradley was an extremely successful steeplechase jockey, licensed by the Jockey Club from 1982 until his retirement in 1999. He has been called one of the most stylish jockeys of his era. On retirement as a jockey he earned his living as a bloodstock agent. In the early 80s he met and became a close friend of a fellow jockey, Barrie Wright (I am going to adopt initials for Barry Wright and others because there are a confusing number of Wrights in the story. Barrie Wright will be BW).
In 1984, through BW, he met a major gambler in the racing world Brian Brendan Wright ("BBW"), no relation of BW, and thereafter BBW's son Brian Anthony Wright ("BAW"), his son-in-law Paul Shannon ("PS"), and another man Ian Kiernan ("IK"). BBW, BAW, PS and IK were members of a gambling organisation. Concerns were raised in the Jockey Club about the activities of BBW. Mr Bradley was asked at a Licensing Committee meeting on 21st June 1999 about his association with BBW and told the Jockey Club that he had done nothing wrong.
In 2001 BAW, PS and IK were convicted of offences of importing or supplying cocaine. BBW did not stand trial, having moved to northern Cyprus. BW was also prosecuted. He was charged with involvement in a conspiracy to import cocaine. Mr Bradley volunteered to appear as a witness at his trial at Southampton Crown Court in order to support his defence that the money that he had received from BBW had related solely to the provision of inside racing information for gambling purposes.
On 28th September 2001 Mr Bradley gave evidence. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he too had received money and presents from BBW in the 1990s for sensitive and privileged information about horses; information which the yards and owners he was riding for were not expecting him to divulge. He stated that he did so in common with "every jockey in the country". He admitted that several members of BBW's betting organisation had his telephone numbers. BW was acquitted.
The Jockey Club gave Mr Bradley notice on 18th June 2002 that it intended to enquire inter alia into matters revealed by his evidence. He was invited to submit to the Rules of Racing which would afford to him a right of appeal against any decision imposing a penalty. Mr Bradley accepted this invitation on the 4th September 2002. The charges to be considered at the inquiry related to various breaches of the Rules of Racing in force at the material time, including:
"(1) Rule 2004(iv)
by giving or offering to give on various dates during the term of his licence information concerning horses entered in races under the Rules of Racing in return for monetary consideration, other than the receipt of a reasonable fee for giving an interview to the Press or other legitimate news gathering organisation for the purposes of general publication …
(3) Rule 62(ii)(c)
by receiving presents in connection with a race on various occasions during the term of his licence from persons other than the Owner of the horse ridden by him in that race …
(4) Rule 220(vii)(b)
by providing false information to the Licensing Committee of the Jockey Club on 21 June 1999, namely statements to the effect that he … had never done anything wrong with Mr Brian Brendan Wright …
(5) Rule 220(viii)
by means of the statements mentioned above, endeavouring by an overt act to mislead the members of the Licensing Committee … "
There were a number of lesser charges which are of no relevance in the present context.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club held the inquiry on 27th to 29th November 2002. The case against Mr Bradley was largely based on his evidence in the Crown Court. Mr Bradley was represented by counsel and gave evidence, explaining that his evidence in the Crown Court was an admission only that he had legitimately provided information to BBW between 1987 and 1990 about the horse he was riding at that time, Border Tinker, of which BBW was the beneficial, albeit not the nominal, owner. Any discrepancies were mistakes or dramatisation made under pressure.
By its decision dated 4th December 2002, the Jockey Club found Mr Bradley in breach of the Rules to which I have referred, and imposed a penalty of disqualification for eight years in respect of those breaches. This was expressed to be for the following principal reasons—
(a) The seriousness of the offences.
(b) The length of time covered by the breaches of Rules 62(ii)(c) and 204(iv) which the Disciplinary Committee found to have taken place from 1984 to 1999 inclusive.
(c) The requirement that the penalty should act as a deterrent to other jockeys.
The effect of disqualification was as follows. Under Rule 205 of the Rules of Racing:
"[A] disqualified person, so long as his disqualification lasts, shall not:
… (iv) enter any racecourse, stands, rooms, enclosures and other places owned or used by the Stewards;
(v) except with the permission of the Stewards … be employed in any racing stables;
(vi) deal in any capacity with a racehorse … "
Rule 220 further provides:
"(iv) No person shall without permission of the Stewards of The Jockey Club associate in connection with horseracing … with any person known to be disqualified … from any premises owned or licensed by the Stewards, whether or not constituting a breach of the … Rules of Racing."
Mr Bradley appealed to the Appeal Court on grounds which included an allegation of apparent bias, unfairness, errors in the application of the Rules of Racing, material new evidence, and the contention that the penalty or sanction imposed was disproportionate. The Appeal Board was chaired by Sir Edward Cazalet, a former High Court judge. It handed down its decision in two parts. The first, on 21st March 2003, ruled against Mr Bradley on the issues of apparent bias and breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention. The second part was handed down on 31st March 2003. This rejected Mr Bradley's appeal on liability and dealt with his appeal in relation to the penalty imposed.
The Appeal Board held that there had been ample material for a reasonable committee to find that Mr Bradley had admitted breaches of the Rules in his evidence in the Crown Court, and to reject the explanation of this evidence that he tendered. The Board further held that while the arrangement to supply information must have been well in place by the 1990s—no later indeed than 1989—there was no evidence to support the Disciplinary Committee's finding that this practice started in 1984. The Appeal Board substituted for the 15-year period, during which this practice had been held to continue, a period of 10 years from 1989 to 1999. The Appeal Board considered the proportionality of the sentence in the light of their revised findings of fact and reduced the penalty imposed upon Mr Bradley from 8 years to 5 years' disqualification.
Mr Bradley issued these proceedings on 28th May 2003. The claim was advanced on two bases. The first was breach of contract. Mr Bradley contended that there had been a breach of implied terms in his agreement to submit to the Rules: namely, that the Jockey Club would carry out its disciplinary functions in accordance with the Rules reasonably and fairly and only impose a sentence proportionate to the facts proven or admitted. The other basis was that the decisions reached against him were in unlawful restraint of trade. The particulars of claim put that plea in this way:
"The appeal board held that the imposition of a disqualification order would debar Graham Bradley from dealing as a bloodstock agent. As such, the imposition of the disqualification order would operate in restraint of trade. Under the common law restraint of trade doctrine, it is not open to the Jockey Club to prevent Graham Bradley pursuing his trade as a bloodstock agent by the imposition of a disqualification order to an extent which is not justifiable or reasonable and proportionate in the interests of the parties and the public."
The Decision of the Appeal Board
The only relevant decision of the Appeal Board is that relating to the penalties imposed on Mr Bradley. The Board directed itself as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (McVey) v Secretary of State for Health
...Bradley v The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 QB in passages which were expressly approved on appeal in that case by Lord Phillips MR. [2005] EWCA Civ 1056 [17] when giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal that on a judicial review application:- “37…The function of the court is not to take......
-
R (ex parte X) v Y School
...in Bradley v The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 QB in passages which were expressly approved on appeal in that case by Lord Phillips MR. [2005] EWCA Civ 1056 [17] when giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal that: (a) "37 … The function of the court is not to take the primary decision but ......
-
R (Jorgenson) v Secretary of State for Justice
...of its power to quash a decision on a judicial review application. Indeed as was pointed out by Richards J (as he then was) in Bradley v The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 QB in passages which were expressly approved on appeal in that case by Lord Phillips M.R. [2005] EWCA Civ 1056 [17] when......
-
Stretford v Football Association Ltd
...by contract: see eg R (Mullins) v Jockey Club [2005] EWHC (Admin) 2197, applying R v Jockey Club ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Bradley v Jockey Club [2005] EWCA Civ 1056 and, in the context of The FA, R v Football Association ex p Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 833. Clauses like Rule......
-
Private Bodies, Public Power and Soft Law in the High Court
...the procedure for invoking the court's jurisdiction is different. See: Mullins 2005 [2005] EWHC 2197 (Admin); Bradley v Jockey Club [2005] EWCA Civ 1056; National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd v Flaherty [2005] EWCA Civ 1117; Mullins v McFarlane [2006] EWHC 986 (QB); and Fallon v Horseracing Re......