Bradley v Jockey Club
[2005] EWCA Civ 1056
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A sports regulatory body exercising quasi-public disciplinary functions must comply with the rules of natural justice. The relationship is contractual, and the court will imply a term that the body will act fairly.
Facts
A licensed jockey was warned off by the Jockey Club following a disciplinary finding. He challenged the decision, arguing procedural unfairness. The Jockey Club argued its relationship with licensees was purely private and not subject to judicial review.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal held that while the Jockey Club was not amenable to judicial review, the contractual relationship with the jockey was subject to implied terms of fairness. The court would intervene to ensure the disciplinary process was conducted fairly.
Key Quotes
"The function of the court is not to take the primary decision but to ensure that the primary decision-maker has operated within lawful limits. It is a review function, very similar to that of the court on judicial review."
— Richards J at first instance, cited with approval by Lord Phillips MR at [17](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Applied to other sports disciplinary bodies including the Football Association and UK Athletics.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help