Cases

R (Mullins) v Appeal Board of the Jockey Club

Held

(1) The Court was bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Aga Khan that decisions of the DC were not amenable to judicial review. (2) Although independently constituted, the nature of the Appeal Board’s function is the same as the DC. None of the Claimant’s suggested factual distinctions provided a basis for departing from Aga Khan. (3) As to changes in the law, the procedural rules have changed since 1993. The test for amenability to judicial review under CPR Part 54 is coterminous with the test for a functional public authority under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the test is in substance that applied in Aga Khan. Aston Cantlow v Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546 applied. (4) The court would have reached the same decision even if it were free to reconsider the matter. Review of such disciplinary decisions is a matter for private law.

Also