McKeown v British Horseracing Association Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 508 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/09/0532 |
| Date | 12 March 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 508 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen
The Honourable Mr Justice Stadlen
Case No: TLQ/09/0532
Case No: TLQ/09/0532
MR Ian Winter QC & MR Andrew Monson (instructed by CHRISTOPHER STEWARTMOORE SOLICITORS) for the CLAIMANT
MR Mark Warby QC & MR Louis Weston (instructed by CHARLES RUSSELL SOLICITORS) for the DEFENDANT
MR Ian Winter QC & MR Andrew Monson (instructed by CHRISTOPHER STEWARTMOORE SOLICITORS) for the CLAIMANT
MR Mark Warby QC & MR Louis Weston (instructed by CHARLES RUSSELL SOLICITORS) for the DEFENDANT
Hearing dates: 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 October 2009
This judgment should be read in conjunction with my principal judgment in this action which will be handed down on Friday 12 March 2010 and which sets out the background to the matters which gave rise to this judgment.
On 17 February 2010 my draft judgment was circulated to the parties. It was sent with the normal note on the cover sheet that the draft was confidential to the parties and their legal representatives and that accordingly neither the draft itself nor its substance might be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. It included the standard form statement that: "The court is likely to wish to hand down its judgment in an approved final form. Counsel should therefore submit any list of typing corrections and other obvious errors in writing (Nil returns are required) to the clerk to Mr Justice Stadlen via email … so that changes can be incorporated, if the judge accepts them, in the handed down judgment."
The draft judgment was circulated as an attachment to an email from my clerk to the parties' solicitors copied to counsel asking them to send any typographical error changes to her by 4.15pm on Monday 22 February 2010 for my consideration. The email said that the date of hand down of the judgment would be 26 February 2010 at 10am. If counsel were unable to attend consequential matters would be dealt with on a separate occasion.
In the evening of 19 February 2010 the defendant's solicitor sent my clerk a list of the defendant's suggested corrections to the draft judgment. Most of these suggested corrections were typographical in character. In addition it was suggested that there was a factual error which occurred in slightly different form in paragraphs 50, 371 and 379 of the draft judgment. The factual error was said to be that whereas I recorded the defendant as having accepted that all the horses owned by Mr Whiting were removed from Mr Blockley's yard on 4 July 2005 rather than the end of December 2005 as found by the Panel, the actual position and the defendant's acceptance thereof was subject to the exception of Hits Only Money which was left behind at the Blockley yard in July 2005 and which when it ran in race eleven in December 2005 was still trained by Mr Blockley owned by Mr Whiting and laid by the conspirators. That was a race which took place before Mr Blockley's interview and was a race in which Mr McKeown was the jockey and indeed was found by the Panel to have been in breach of Rule 157 in respect of his ride.
At 2.25pm on 22 February 2010 Mr Warby sent an email to my clerk indicating that there was a point arising which required to be dealt with at or before the hand down on which the defendant aimed to provide written submissions by the end of the following day. At 5.11pm on 22 February 2010 my clerk sent an email to Mr Warby copied to the other lawyers on both sides referring to the suggested corrections to paragraphs 50, 371 and 379 and Mr Warby's indication in his email timed at 2.25 pm that day that the defendant wished to raise a point of substance on the judgment. The email stated:
"The judge thought it might be helpful if he were to make clear that in coming to his decision he had well in mind that Hits Only Money (i) was jointly owned by Messrs Whiting, Blockley and Wright,(ii) was not moved with the other Whiting horses in July 2005, (iii) was ridden by Mr McKeown and trained by Mr Blockley in December 2005, (iv) was the subject of lay betting by Mr Wright in the 4.20 at Wolverhampton on 19 December 2005. and (v) was the subject of findings by the Panel that it was ridden in that race in breach of Rule 157 by Mr McKeown and was one of the four non-trier races which gave rise also to an inference that Mr McKeown gave assurances that he would protect the lay bets in breach of Rule 201(v). Points (i),(iii),(iv) and (v) appear inter alia from paras 248, 251,349, 351,357 and 375, as does the fact that the judge had well in mind that these are points relied on by the defendant in answer to Mr Winter's second new argument and the judge's view that there is some force in the defendant's answer. Point (ii) is not explicitly referred to in the draft judgment. Nor is the fact, which the judge also had well in mind, that Mr McKeown accepted that the lay betting did not cease in July 2005 in the sense that that he acknowledged that Mr Wright had placed a lay bet against Hits Only Money in the December 2005 race.
The judge proposes to make the necessary amendments to the draft judgment both to correct the factual inaccuracies identified in the defendant's list of errors and also to make clear such of the above points as are not clear from the draft."
On 23 February at 3.34pm Mr Warby's clerk emailed my clerk attaching written submissions from Mr Warby and Mr Weston on behalf of the defendant. The submissions invited me to reconsider what it described as my "decision to make a declaration with the effect of inviting the Panel to re-hear a limited part of the case for the purposes of reconsidering its findings and/or penalty or to allow the defendant the opportunity to address me on penalty, that not having been a matter argued on the claim by the parties because no challenge had been brought against penalty in these proceedings." I was invited to give directions to ensure that the issues identified in the submissions were resolved and the parties informed of their resolution in advance of the hand-down so that submissions on the other matters could be formulated in the knowledge of my final conclusions on the those matters. It was proposed that any response from the claimant's side be served and lodged by 4.30 on Friday 26 February 2010. I was invited to rule on whether there should be a hearing on the issues or that they be dealt with without a further hearing.
One of the matters prayed in aid of the submission that I should reverse my judgment in respect of the issue as to a re-hearing by the Panel was that I "appeared to be in error as to the chronology of the horses leaving Blockley's Yard. (see paras 50, 371 and 379 and the defendant's suggested corrections to the draft). The correct sequence of events on the claimant's case is that the majority of the Whiting horses left the Blockley yard in July 2005 leaving the Whiting owned Hits Only Money at the yard. Hits Only Money was ridden by the claimant in December 2005 and lay bets were placed upon it by Wright. It is a matter for the court to consider whether that error is one that requires correction, and whether it is a material matter to the conclusion the court then reached." I return to the substance of the submissions below.
At 4.46pm on 23 February 2010 my clerk emailed Mr Winter's clerk and Mr McKeown's solicitor asking if the deadline proposed by the defendant for any response to its submissions, namely 4.30pm on Friday 26 February would cause the claimant's side any difficulty and asking if Mr Winter had any other response to the defendant's proposals to which I have referred. At 6.29pm Mr Winter's clerk replied indicating that because of other work commitments, including a foreign trip, he would be able to serve his response by 4pm on Tuesday 2 March.
At 12.28pm on 23 February 2010 Mr McKeown's solicitor emailed my clerk referring to the defendant's reference in its proposed corrections to paragraph 50 to Hits Only Money as a Clive Whiting owed horse and pointing out that Mr Whiting owned only a minority share of the horse together with Mr Blockley and Mr Wright. He referred to a passage in the transcript of Mr Blockley's evidence to the Panel in answering a question from the chairman about the date on which the horses left: "Yes I think all the horses went then except Hits Only Money. That perhaps did not go because I owned a little share of it." He then went on to say that he had a quarter share.
At 4.55pm on 23 February 2010 my clerk emailed Mr Warby asking for confirmation that he had received my email of 22 February sent at 5.11pm and whether the defendant's submissions on the draft judgment and in particular paragraph 7 thereof which referred to my apparent factual error on the timing of the horses leaving Blockley's yard were settled in the knowledge of its contents.
At 9.06pm on 23 February 2010 Mr Warby replied confirming that the submissions had been initially drafted before receipt of that email but finalised thereafter. Mr Warby said that he had taken the view on balance that since my clerk's email had left open precisely what changes would be made to the draft judgment it was best to leave paragraph 7 as it stood. He said that that was not for the avoidance of doubt intended to undercut what had already been said still less to offend. (I interpose that no question of offence arose).
It was by now clear to me that it would be inappropriate to maintain the 26 February hand down date. I had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr Robin Edward Lawrence v The General Medical Council
... ... Thus in McKeown v British Horse Racing Authority [2010] EWHC 508 it was said that I ... of erotic transference affecting Patient B and the clear association between that condition and the misperception of those erotic feelings ... ...
-
Dean Mckeown v Attheraces Ltd
...to his own experience when preparing his judgment in earlier judicial review proceedings: McKeown v British Horseracing Authority [2010] EWHC 508 (QB), 12 March 2010, at [196]-[198]. Leaving aside any practical difficulty there may be, or any substantial additional cost in arranging for a j......