The applicant, a lady jockey appealed refusal by the Jockey Club to issue to her a jockey’s license based simply on the fact of her sex.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. The refusal was against public policy. 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 Denning: ‘We live in days when many trading or professional associations operate ‘closed shops’. No person can work at his trade or profession except by their permission. They can deprive him of his livelihood, When a man is wrongly rejected or ousted by one of these associations, has he no remedy? I think he may well have, even though he can show no contract. The courts have power to grant him a declaration that his rejection and ouster was invalid and an injunction requiring the association to rectify their error. He may not be able to get damages unless he can show a contract or a tort. But he may get a declaration and injunction.’ If those having the governance of a trade or profession ‘make a rule which enables them to reject his application arbitrarily or capriciously, not reasonably, that rule is bad.’
Lord Denning MR
[1966] 2 QB 633, [1966] 2 WLR 1027
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Koeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
Cited – Bradley v The Jockey Club CA 12-Jul-2005
The Jockey had been disqualified from riding for five years for breaches of the club’s rules. He said the punishment was disproportionate in effectively preventing him working for a living.
Held: The appeal failed, and the judge’s analysis was . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.228477
