Back
1949 Supreme(SC) 31
Privy Council At Trinidad
Macdermott, Morton of Henryton, Normand, Simonds, Justice Lords Porter, JJ.
Lennox Arthur Patrick O’Reilly and others -Appellant
Versus
Cyril Cuthbert Gittens -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 96 of 1946
Decided On : 14-07-1949
Maples Teesdale and Co., J.N. Mason and Co., H.S. Grannum, G. D. Squibb, D. Maxwell Fyfe, John Hobson, Richard Elwes, Walter Monckton
Courts will not interfere with domestic tribunal decisions provided they act in good faith, within their jurisdiction, and adhere to basic natural justice—providing notice and a fair opportunity to be heard—regardless of the severity of the penalty or the strictness of the rules applied.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Racing and General Rules of a Racing Authority - Power of Stewards to grant or withdraw licenses, conduct inquiries, and "warn off" persons - Effect of being "warned off" as becoming a "disqualified person" - Jurisdiction of courts over domestic tribunals - Principles of natural justice in domestic inquiries: requirement of notice, opportunity to be heard, and an honest decision-making process (Paras 9, 10, 12).
(B) Domestic Tribunals - Limited scope of judicial interference - Court cannot substitute its own view for that of a domestic tribunal regarding fairness or the severity of a penalty, provided the tribunal acts in good faith and within its jurisdiction - Application of a strict rule of absolute responsibility does not violate natural justice if the party had a full opportunity to present their case and argue against the application of such a rule (Paras 12, 15).
(C) Bias in Domestic Tribunals - Standard of impartiality is lower than that required in courts of law - Personal dislike or prejudice of a tribunal member does not invalidate proceedings unless it is established that the member did not honestly attempt to arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence (Paras 16, 17).
Facts of the case:
A trainer's horse tested positive for a prohibited drug. The stewards of the recognized turf authority held an inquiry and subsequently disqualified the horse, withdrew the trainer's license, and warned the trainer off. The trainer sought declarations that the stewards lacked jurisdiction, that certain members were biased, and that the decision was contrary to natural justice due to the application of an inflexible rule of absolute responsibility for the safeguarding of the horse.
Findings of Court:
The stewards possessed the authority to warn off the trainer, and such an action rendered him a disqualified person under the applicable rules. The inquiry was not void for lack of natural justice as the trainer was provided a full opportunity to be heard and lead evidence. The presence of stewards with personal prejudices did not invalidate the proceedings because there was no evidence that they failed to act honestly and in good faith. The disqualification of the horse and the withdrawal of the license were valid exercises of the stewards' discretionary powers.
Issues: Whether the authority had the power to "warn off" the trainer and if this made him a disqualified person; whether the application of a strict rule of responsibility violated natural justice; whether personal bias of tribunal members invalidated the inquiry; and whether the disqualification of the horse and license withdrawal were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere with domestic tribunals. Such proceedings are valid if the accused has notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the decision is honestly arrived at. A strict standard of liability or a severe penalty does not render a decision void if the tribunal acts in good faith and within its jurisdiction. Personal prejudice does not disqualify a member of a domestic tribunal unless it prevents an honest adjudication of the facts.
Result: Appeal allowed.
This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of an action, brought by Dr. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens (hereafter called the respondent) as plaintiff against the appellants, which succeeds, in part and failed in part.
[2] The appellants were at all material times the stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club. That club is the recognised turf authority in the Colony of Trinidad and Tobago, and exercises its powers and jurisdiction by the stewards of the club. The respondent is a dental surgeon and an owner and trainer of racehorses. At all material times the respondent held a trainer's licence which expressly provided as follows :
"This licence is issued subject to the rules, regulations and resolutions of the Trinidad Turf Club for the time being and may be withdrawn or suspended by the stewards of that club in their absolute discretion, and such withdrawal or suspension may be published in any local newspaper or newspapers, for any reason which may seem proper to such Stewards, and they should not be bound to state their reasons.'
[3] The respondent entered a horse called "Tommy Boy," owned and trained by himself, in certain races at a meeting held by the Tobago Race Club, under the authority of the Trinidad Turf Club, in the spring of 1944. All entries for the said races were made "subject to the rules and regulations of the Trinidad Turf Club." "Tommy Boy" won the first and fifth races on the second day of the meeting, namely, 4th March.
[4] In accordance with a practice recently instituted by the stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club, swabs of the saliva of each winner were taken on the course. After examination, the Government analyst reported on 10th April 1944 to the Trinidad Turf Club that the swabs taken from "Tommy Boy" contained evidence of the presence of heroin. On 25th, 27th and 29th April 1944, the appellants, acting as stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club, held an inquiry into this matter. The respondent attended the inquiry and was represented by solicitor and counsel. At the hearing the respondent was given a full opportunity to cross-examine, to lead evidence and to put forward his contentions by his counsel. At the beginning of the hearing the respondent by his counsel objected to the presence of the appellants de Nobriga and Liddelow on the ground that they were biased against him. This objection was overruled and all the appellants accordingly sat in the inquiry. At the conclusion of the hearing the appellants issued findings and an Order in the following terms:
"Turf Club Office, 29th April 1944.
The Stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club, having investigated the circumstances relating to 'Tommy Boy' find as follows:
(i) A drug was administered to 'Tommy Boy' on the second day of the Tobago Races (4th March 1944), which was calculated to affect its speed.
(ii) The Stewards hold the trainer, Doctor Cyril Gittens, responsible for the safeguarding of the horse. They Order:
(a) That 'Tommy Boy' be disqualified as from this date from all future racing under the Rules of the Trinidad Turf Club;
(b) That the licence of Dr. Cyril Gittens, as trainer be withdrawn :
(c) That Dr. Cyril Gittens be warned off pursuant to the powers vested in the Stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club.
L. A. P. O'Reilly, Steward.
C. A. Child.
C. Lloyd Trestrail.George de Nobriga.S. Liddelow."
[5] The writ in this action was issued on 5th May 1944. By his Statement of Claim delivered on 16th October 1944, the respondent claimed :
"(A) A declaration that the defendants acting or purporting to act as stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club had no jurisdiction to entertain the said inquiry or to make any of the said decision or orders thereon or alternatively that they exceeded their jurisdiction by making any decision or order against the plaintiff and or his racehorse 'Tommy Boy' and/or that the defendants de Nobriga and Liddelow (either or both of them) were disqualified from participating in the said inquiry or in any of the decision or orders thereon and/or tha
