Cronin v The Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd

A private regulatory body exercising disciplinary powers under contractual rules is subject to procedural fairness. A duty to give reasons may arise at some stage, even where the rules do not expressly require reasons. Fairness is assessed by the procedure as a whole. An absence of reasons in the initial decision does not necessarily make the process unfair where an effective appeal is available, the appellant can formulate grounds from the hearing materials, the appeal body can direct provision of reasons, and it must itself give written reasons. The question is whether the alleged deficiency produced overall unfairness. A late attempt to widen appellate grounds may be refused where it is unpleaded and would cause injustice or prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent, a private regulator of greyhound racing, disciplined the appellant, a licensed trainer, following a contested inquiry. The Disciplinary Committee found breaches of the Rules of Racing and imposed a reprimand, fine and costs. The appellant did not use the prescribed appeal to the Appeal Board, allowed his licence to expire, and later commenced County Court proceedings alleging, among other matters, a failure to give reasons.

The claim was struck out, reinstated, and then struck out again by Recorder Bedingfield on the respondent’s appeal. Permission was granted for a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the absence of reasons from the initial disciplinary decision made the overall procedure unfair and rendered the claim arguable.

1. Scope and outcome. Maurice Kay LJ delivered the judgment, with Richards and Pitchford LJJ agreeing. The appeal was dismissed. As this was an appeal against a striking-out order, the Court considered arguability rather than the ultimate merits. The unamended grounds raised no serious issue beyond the reasons challenge.
2. Reasons and procedural fairness. The Board’s reliance on McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520 did not justify an absolute proposition that a disciplinary body could never owe a duty to give reasons. Recent authority, including Phipps v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 397, made it arguable that fairness required reasons at some stage, even where the affected person did not intend to challenge the decision. That did not determine whether reasons had to accompany the initial decision.
3. Overall fairness. The controlling question was whether, having regard to the proceedings as a whole, a fair result had been reached by fair methods. The Court applied the approach drawn in Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1192 from Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574. An initial procedural defect does not automatically make the eventual procedure unfair; the court must assess whether the alleged deficiency produced overall unfairness. Bradley v The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 QB, upheld on appeal in 2005 EWCA Civ 1056, illustrated the significance of an effective internal appeal.
4. Application. The allegations had been contested at a hearing where both parties were represented and the appellant had access to recordings of the proceedings. That material was sufficient to begin an appeal. The Appeal Board could give directions requiring reasons from the Disciplinary Committee if necessary, could hear oral evidence notwithstanding the restriction on new evidence, and was required to provide written reasons itself. The failure to appeal therefore did not establish overall unfairness, and the reasons challenge was unsustainable.
5. Amendment. The late application to widen the grounds was refused. No draft amended grounds had been provided, the proposed allegations were unpleaded, and the respondent had been on notice that amendment might be required. Allowing the amendment would have been unjust and prejudicial.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 18 June 2013, the Court dismissed the appeal from Recorder Bedingfield’s order striking out the claim.
2. Southend County Court. District Judge Collier struck out the claim on paper. District Judge Molineaux later reinstated it. Recorder Bedingfield allowed the respondent’s appeal and struck out the claim again.