Lord Woolf MR said: ‘The question of whether a complaint about the conduct of a disciplinary committee gives rise to a remedy in public law or private law or is often difficult to determine. However the complaint in both cases would be based on an allegation of unfairness. While in some situations public and private law principles can differ, I can see no reason why there should be any difference as to what constitutes unfairness or why the standard of fairness required by an implied term should differ from that required of the same tribunal under public law.’
Latham LJ referred to a number of the earlier authorities on the court’s power to grant remedies against domestic tribunals, and continued: ‘However this particular debate has been resolved, certainly in this court, in Nagle v Fielden . . in which the court unanimously held that, where a man’s right to work was in issue, a decision of a domestic body which affected that right could be the subject of a claim for a declaration and an injunction even where no contractual relationship could be established.”
Lord Woolf MR, Latham LJ
 EWCA Civ 2209,  1 WLR 1192
England and Wales
Appeal from – Modahl v British Athletics Federation HL 23-Jul-1999
An athlete’s governing body was not in breach of contract to a member athlete by suspending her in accordance with its rules after a positive drug test. It was accepted that the faults in the registration of the drug testing centre with another . .
Cited – McKeown v British Horseracing Authority QBD 12-Mar-2010
The jockey claimant challenged disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the defendant authority.
Held: The findings were upheld in part but remitted for consideration of giving the claimant opportunity to challenge certain evidence. . .
Cited – Bradley v Jockey Club QBD 2004
The former jockey sought an injunction to restrain the respondent enforcing a ban it had imposed on him from working as a jockey for five years. The defendant had previously been ruled authoritatively not to be amenable to judicial review in public . .
Cited – Chambers v British Olympic Association QBD 18-Jul-2008
The claimant, a former Olypmic sprinter had now competed a ban after being found to have taken banned drugs. He had returned to the sprort but now challenged the policy of the respondent not to allow for consideration of the Olympic team, athletes . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142606