Gopal Sri Ram JCA:-

[1] This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's originating summons in which he sought a declaration that r. 144(4) of Malayan Racing Association Rules, which we will refer to as "the rules", is null and void. The facts which form common ground between the parties are as follows.

[2] The appellant is a professional horse trainer. On 14 October 2000 he appeared before an enquiry conducted by the Stipendiary Stewards on a charge that he had breach his duty as a trainer pursuant to r. 144(4) of the rules.

[3] It transpires that the charge arose out of a race in which a horse named "Wonderful General" had taken part. His rider at material time was one Damian Miller. Miller as the jockey was later charged for having failed to ride the horse in question with sufficient vigour and determination and also to have failed to give full opportunity of winning or obtaining the best possible place. He was convicted of that charge and a one year disqualification was imposed on him. As we have already said, the appellant's conviction arose out of r. 144(4) and for convenience we will set out the whole of r. 144 which reads as follows:-

Races and Running

144 (1) Every horse which runs in a race shall be run on its merits. (Amended 12/7/99)

(2) The Rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures through out the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity of winning or obtaining the best possible placing. (Amended 12/7/99)

(3) It shall be the duty of a Trainer to ensure that adequate instructions are given to the Rider of any horse in his care and no Owner or Trainer shall give any instruction to the Rider of any horse which if obeyed could or would prevent the horse from winning a race or of obtaining the best possible placing, neither shall the Owner, Trainer, the Rider or any other person prevent or try to prevent in any way any horse from winning a race or of obtaining the best possible placing. (Amended 12/7/99)

(4) Where any Rider is found in breach of sub-rule (2) of this Rule, the Trainer of the horse in question shall be deemed to be in breach of this Rule unless the Trainer satisfies the Stipendiary Stewards that the Rider failed to comply with the instruction given to him under sub-rule (3) of this Rule which if followed would have enabled the Rider to have obtained the best possible placing, and in this event the Trainer shall be found not to have been in breach of this Rule. (Amended 4/9/2000)

(5) When in the opinion of the Stipendiary Stewards any person has committed any breach of or is guilty of any offence under sub-rule (2), (3) or (4) of this Rule, the Stipendiary Stewards shall disqualify such person. The disqualification shall be for a period of one (1) year. The Stipendiary Stewards may in addition disqualify such person for any further period not exceeding one (1) year and/or impose a fine not exceeding S$25,000.00 or its equivalent. (Amended 4/9/2000)

(6) Without prejudice to generality of Rule 56B, if a Rider or Trainer becomes a disqualified person under this Rule his permit or license is thereby revoked. (Amended 4/9/2000)

[4] The appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year disqualification. Additionally, his deposit was forfeited and he was directed to transfer all his horses out of their stables within 14 days.

[5] Before us, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of his client was wrong because r. 144(4) does not create an offence but it was mere evidential provision. Before we enter upon this issue, we find it necessary to make certain observations on the underlying principle that governs this case which was apparently overlooked by counsel on both sides as well as by the learned judge in the court below. In the first place, we must emphasise that this is not a public law case. Therefore, the principles that govern the judicial review of acts or decisions of public decision-taker