The Weekly Roundup: The Horse(play) Edition

• Published date: 20 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Sport
• Law Firm: 1 Chancery Lane
• Author: Robert Parkin and Conor Kennedy

Regular readers will recall that on 21^st December last year no fewer than three courts handed down judgments involving airlines; this week it's the turn of horses (and horseplay) to come to the fore. We look forward to seeing what next week will bring. In the meantime, a reminder that the service of proceedings is an important matter for which there is no substitute for following the rules; in Ideal Shopping Direct Limited v Mastercard Inc [2022] 1 WLUK 53 the Court of Appeal confirmed that under the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme set out in CPR51PDO, a claim form had to be sealed before it could be validly served. A mistake whereby an unsealed claim form had been served was not a procedural defect which could be remedied under CPR3.10, because if the remedying of an error under Rule 3.10 would involve bypassing specific rules, it was not permissible. A timely reminder that there are some slip-ups which cannot be remedied.

Working with Horses

Just before Christmas, the High Court handed down an important judgment on liability between participants in potentially dangerous sports in Tylicki v Gibbons [2021] EWHC 3470 (QB)¹.

The Claimant and the Defendant were professional jockeys engaged in a high-level competitive horse race. It was common ground that this was a risky business in which the parties were experienced, voluntary participants:

92 Risk of injury is part of a professional jockey's life and, while more unusual in flat racing, falls from horses is an inevitable concomitant of horse racing. Interference between horses and findings of carelessness are regular.

The circumstances of the accident are described in industry-specific terms which are admittedly difficult for a horseracing layperson to follow, but broadly the Defendant caused his horse to veer into the path of the Claimant's horse, in a manner which did not comply with the rules of the race, over the course of several seconds. This caused the Claimant's horse to trip and fall. The Claimant suffered serious neck injuries, and was left paraplegic.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had fallen short of the duty of care owed by sportsmen to one another, even allowing for the risks inherent in horse racing. The Defendant averred that what had happened was a mere racing accident, albeit with serious consequences, but that there was no breach.

It was common ground that the key authority on liability remained Caldwell v Maguire & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1054², in which five key principles were described:

[1] Each Contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) owes a duty of care to each and all other contestants.

[2] That duty is to exercise in the course of the contest all care that is objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances for the avoidance of infliction of injury to such fellow contestants.

[3] The prevailing circumstances are all such properly attendant upon the contest and include its object, the demands inevitably made upon its...