R v Jockey Club, ex parte R.A.M. Racecourses Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1990 |
| Date | 30 March 1990 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Mr Justice Simon Brown
Judicial review - contract - legitimate expectation
RAM Racecourses Ltd, owners of a new racecourse at Telford in Shropshire, were not entitled on the strength of a Jockey Club report to expect that the club would allocate 15 fixtures for that course in 1991.
The report did not contain a clear and unambiguous representation that fixtures would be so allocated, nor had it been intended for or addressed to RAM Racecourses Ltd, who should, as prudent businessmen, have checked with the club that they would be allocated fixtures.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing an application for judicial review of the Jockey Club's refusal to allocate the fixtures to the new course.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith took the view that were it not for the authorities, the Jockey Club's decisions would be amenable to judicial review. Mr Justice Simon Brown expressed limited disagreement with the authorities and regarded certain of the club's decisions as reviewable.
Mr Michael Beloff, QC and Mr David Pannick for RAM Racecourses; Mr Patrick Milmo, QC and Mr Richard Spearman for the Jockey Club.
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH said RAM Racecourses claimed that statements made in a report by a Jockey Club study group had given them a reasonable expectation that fixtures would be allocated to Telford for 1991.
On the facts, in his Lordship's view, RAM had failed to establish a legitimate expectation. The report lacked clarity and contained inherent contradictions and the applicant was not a direct recipient of it.
In those circumstances, it was not reasonable for the applicants to rely on the representation without inquiring directly of the Jockey Club whether they were correct in assuming that 15 fixtures would be available at Telford in 1991.
Turning to jurisdiction, his Lordship said that in R v Jockey Club, Ex parte Massingberd-Mundy (The Times January 3), Lord Justice Neill and Mr Justice Roch had held that a decision of the club's disciplinary committee to remove the applicant's name from a panel of local chairmen was not amenable to judicial review.
Lord Justice Neill, considering himself bound by the authority ofLaw v National Greyhound Racing ClubWLR ((1983) 1 WLR 1302), had held that no decisions of the Jockey Club were subject to judicial review.
Mr Justice Roch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tapper el al v Director of Public Prosecutions el al
...enforceable legal rights.” 157 The principles governing legitimate expectation were set out by Stuart-Smith, L.J. in R. v. Jockey Club Ex parte RAM Racehorses Ltd. [1993] 2 All E.R. 225 at 236-237 as: (i) a clear and unambiguous representation see per Bingham, L.J. in Ex parte MFK Underwrit......
-
R v Attorney General ex parte Jamaican Bar Association
...interest arising from (the respondent's) duties and responsibilities - (See R. v. Jockery Club exparte RAM Race Courses Ltd. (1993) 2 All E.R. 225 at 236 (h) . Mr. Leys indicates that it is in relation to the first category that the Respondent takes issue with the applicant on the evidence......
-
Cortina Villas v Planning Appeals Trib
...v. Home Secy., ex p. Hargreaves, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 906; [1997] 1 All E.R. 397. (11) R. v. Jockey Club, ex p. R.A.M. Racecourses Ltd., [1993] 2 All E.R. 225; [1990] C.O.D. 346, followed. (12) Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40; [1963] 2 All E.R. 66. (13) Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All ......
- Sunway D' Mont Kiara Sdn Bhd v Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan (and Another Application)
-
An Audit of Fair Procedures within the GAA: The Impetus for Change of the GAA's Disciplinary Rules Provided by the Na Fianna Action
...Jockey Club, ex p. Massingberd Mundy [1993] 2 All ER 207, (hereinafter Massingberd-Mundy); R v. Jockey Club, ex p. RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 225, (hereinafter RAMRacecourses and Aga Khan), supra fn. 66 " R v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p. Datafin plc. [1987] 1 All ER 564 w......
-
New directions in judicial review; 'heresy' and 'the forbidden merits': what to legitimately expect in the Cayman Islands?
...oflnland Revenue, ex parte MFK Underwriting AgenciesLtd. [1990] 1 All E.R. 91 and R v. JockeyClub,ex parte RAM Racecourses Ltd. [1993] 2 All E.R 225 were also noted as unsuccessful applications of the principle, Reference to such cases was perhaps indicative of the potential uncertainty as ......