Canterbury JC – 9 November 2005 –

hearingid: adf3fac9ee761950d5860590708ca11a

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 09/11/2005

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC - 9 November 2005 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

As a result of the dispute between Mr PA Taylor and Mr JR Lynds in relation to the riding engagement for Race 9 on today's card in respect of the horse, "Abit Rusty", Mr SC Ching preferred an Information against Mr JR Lynds alleging that he wilfully broke the engagement with Mr PA Taylor on "Abit Rusty" in Race 9 on today's card.

As a result of the dispute between Mr PA Taylor and Mr JR Lynds in relation to the riding engagement for Race 9 on today's card in respect of the horse, "Abit Rusty", Mr SC Ching preferred an Information against Mr JR Lynds alleging that he wilfully broke the engagement with Mr PA Taylor on "Abit Rusty" in Race 9 on today's card.

The parties agreed that the evidence that was given in the request for a ruling was able to constitute part of the evidence for the purposes of this Information.

In summary, Mr PA Taylor told the hearing that he was firmly of the view that he was to ride "Abit Rusty" based on the lengthy connection that he had with the horse. He stated that Mr Satherley had told him that he did not need to "telephone back to confirm the ride". Accordingly, Mr PA Taylor booked a non-refundable flight for today's meeting.

Mr Lynds' evidence in summary was that no firm engagement was made by his stable with Mr Taylor and that Mr Taylor acted on a presumption only.

We considered that it was crucial to the determination of this Information that we hear from Mr Warwick Satherley, Mr Lynds' stable foreman. Mr Satherley confirmed that whilst he had a general authority to engage riders, it was always subject to the final approval of Mr Lynds or owners. He said that he was acting on a presumption that Mr PA Taylor would be engaged but was given a clear instruction on the afternoon of Friday 3^rd November that Mr Taylor would not be riding the horse.

Mr Lynds confirmed that he did not engage Mr Taylor - that Mr Taylor acted on a presumption only and that the instructions that he (Mr Lynds) received from the owners were clear. Mr HS Tinsley was the rider to be engaged. We have already ruled that Mr HS Tinsley is to ride the horse as he was engaged for the ride and was declared as the rider within the designated time.

The issues for determination, in terms of Rule 520(5) are these:

--

--
• Was Mr PA Taylor engaged for the ride; and

We move to the first point.

Mr Taylor has a lengthy connection with the horse. He has ridden it for eleven of its last twelve starts. He honestly believed that he was engaged to ride the horse today. He based that belief on his decisions with Mr Satherley, Mrs Lynds's stable foreman.

However, there are two sides to a riding engagement which are fundamental to any contract In order for us to find that there was a riding engagement we would have to be satisfied that firm arrangements had been made. Instead, it seems that not only was Mr Taylor taking it for granted that he, Mr Taylor, would be riding, but so also was the stable foreman, Mr Satherley.

Mr Satherley nominated Mr Taylor as the rider on the morning of 3^rd November 2005 but then advised N.Z.T.R.'s Bureau later in the day to take Mr Taylor off as no decision had been made as to whom was to ride.

At that time, Mr Satherley should have contacted Mr Taylor and told him that he was not to be offered the ride. Instead, Mr Taylor was left to find out some two to three days later that he was not riding the horse.

Notwithstanding a most unsatisfactory chain of events, we cannot find that a firm riding engagement was concluded. We have to say that Mr Taylor has been treated quite badly in the circumstances and as I have said in my decision n the ruling, Mr Taylor was justified in requesting a ruling.

Our dissatisfaction with the chain of events and our opinion on the way Mr Taylor has been treated is not enough to find that a riding engagement had been properly concluded.

Having made that finding, we do not need to rule on the second issue i.e. as to whether the engagement was wilfully broken. The Information is dismissed.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 520.5

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: