R (Mullins) v Jockey Club [2005] EWHC (Admin) 2197
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:00:26 UTC
The Jockey Club is not a PA in relation to s.6 HRA 1998 even though some of its rules purported to relate to the world at large, since they derive effect through contracts only.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Nagle v Feilden
The Jockey Club (nobody argued that this was a union) had a policy of refusing a licence to a woman, even though it was willing to grant licences to women’s employees. Plaintiff, a female horse train...
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan
Defendant regulated the horse racing profession by the issue of licences and permits by which the club's stewards entered into contracts with racecourse managers, owners, trainers and jockeys, who we...
Bradley v Jockey Club
B had received money in return for sensitive information about horses which breached the Jockey Club’s rules and was therefore disqualified for 5 years from working in racing. CA said that while it h...
Law v National Greyhound Racing Club
Defendant, a company, ran several greyhound racing stadiums and it decided to suspend Plaintiff’s trainer licence. Plaintiff sought a declaration that the decision was ultra vires and in breach of an...
Harrods v Remick
Under s.7 RRA 1976 it was unlawful to discriminate on race against any person who worked “for” the discriminator. Plaintiff was employed by a company who had a stall in Harrods. Under this arrangemen...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.