Fallon charged

[trapper john]

imo if fallon had agreed to ride native khan then he should of stuck to his word and ridden the horse trouble just seems to follow the guy although i do think maybe the owners went abit ott

[Lingfield]

Couple of queries :

1: Has anyone actually seen the "contract"? Was it produced in court and if so is there a published version anywhere in the public domain? I’d like to read it and see what it committed Fallon to.

2: What did Dunlop mean earlier in the week when he commented "He’s as committed to Native Khan as Mr Fallon is ever committed" (or words to that effect) Why didn’t he state at that point that there was a written contract? (if there was one)

J

Dunlop saw the contract :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju … -derby-ban

The judge saw it later

[Coggy]

Having seen Recital finish behind Native Khan a question to Mr Fallon. Was it really all worth it ?
Having been prevented from even taking part, no doubt with all the court costs to come, and the damages he will have to pay for his breach of contract.
He is now an elder statesman in the sport and you would hope that in the closing years of his career he could learn from his sizeable number of mistakes. He should finish his career graciously, and leave us with good memories. Rather than a litany of what might have beens

[Tony25]

Maybe old school but im for people keeping their word, Fallon certainly gave the impression that he had the choice of rides but he didn`t, correct decision!

[Pompete]

Wit, as TRF legal expert can you tell us what would have happened had Fallon said ‘bollocks to the High Court I’m riding Recital anyway"….?

I understand he would have been in contempt of court but what punishment can the court impose and is the contempt of court extended (if you like) to the owners of Recital or even the BHA for allowing it (should it have done) to happen?

[wit]

Pompete,

In England contempt of a civil court order may be purged through incarceration, fine, apology, and/or such other manner as seems appropriate to the Court and is within its power to order (eg cannot order limb to be lopped off but can order forfeiture of assets).

Even contempt of a civil Court order must be proven to the criminal standard of proof – ie that it is beyond reasonable doubt that each individual brought before the Court as an alleged contemnor (whether a primary contemnor like your Mr Bollocks or a secondary contemnor aiding / abetting Mr Bollocks):

(a) knew about the order, and
(b) was able to comply with it; yet
(c) failed to comply with it.

Contempt therefore is not something that the owners of the "prohibited" mount or the BHA or the clerk of scales or the starter or the trainer giving the leg-up, etc could innocently blunder into, in theory at least.

Its often said that a person has to be served with a copy of the civil Court order along with a penalty notice advising of consequences of its breach, before they can be done for contempt. While that is generally done, where someone acts as blatantly as Mr Bollocks it would not necessarily be a pre-requisite.

Had the race been run with Mr Bollocks on his prohibited mount, the Court could not rewrite history and could not eg order that the race to be voided, struck from the record books, or whatever.

But the Court would ensure – after the event – that one way or another Mr Bollocks (and any other contemnor):

– not profit from their contempt and end up in the same position they would have been in had they complied with the injunction (the Court’s concern to achieve compliance with its order), plus

– get fined and/or imprisoned for acting in contempt (the Court’s concern to punish the disrespect shown with suitable severity), plus

– apologise unreservedly and publicly.

Contempt is an existential threat to the authority of the whole Court system, so typically a Court will ensure that severe moral hazard attaches to any such behaviour.

(Its often what underlies claims, often from non-payers of child support, that imprisonment for debt still exists in England)

Even though the Contempt of Court Act states a maximum prison term for (criminal) conrempt as two years, there are often other ways available to hit harder in cases deemed to merit it.

[Pompete]

Thanks Wit, blimey I had no idea me being a Lumpemproletarian , that’s very interesting with very serious potential consequences for anyone defying the injunction or complicit in it being defied.

I feel a bit sorry for Fallon in this instance. I know he signed a contract and the owner had every right to require the contract to be adhered too and every right to resort to law to enforce his side (or part of) of the contract.

But, if it had been any other 99 out of a 100 owners he would probable had got away with it, which I guess was his viewpoint at the time. Unfortunately for him he got lumbered with the 1 out of a 100. Then again, if there is a way of ******* things up, Fallon can usally be relied on to find it

[cormack15]

In commerce if you sign a contract you honour it or face the consequence, whatever that might be. As the judge said, why should racing be any different.

Bet Lester never signed much.

[% MAN]

Imagine if this type of litigation catches on – in the world of football for example!!!!!

[andyod]

Lester never signed a contract but Sir Henry sent a letter to all his owners stating Lesters conditions for riding(money) and that got everyone in trouble. And you say Fallon was nieve!

[andyod]

No Lester maybe never signed a contract but his "contract" or request caused Henry Cecil to lose customers.

[wit]

Court of Appeal judgment transcript is now online:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg … method=all

including this:

===========================

12. Clause 6 of the Retainer Agreement provides:

"6. Jockey’s Obligations

6.1 The Jockey and his agent(s) agrees that he shall:

(a) Not ride for any other horse where the Jockey has been retained to ride Native Khan under this retainer

(b) Ride the Retainers’ Horses in races whenever possible to do so or as requested by the Retainers; and

(c) Wherever a conflict of interest or of a choice of horses to ride occurs for that include a Retainers’ Horse, the Jockey shall always ride the Retainers’ Horse, unless the Retainers otherwise agree; and

(d) Ride the Retainers’ Horses in as diligent a way as possible, making all reasonable efforts to win; and

(e) Conduct himself and appraise the Retainers in an open and honest fashion relating to his subjective views about the training regime, fitness and potential of all the Retainers’ Horses and recommendations for training and alternative jockeys when it is not possible for the Jockey to ride a Retainers’ Horse in a race. In addition, the Jockey shall use all reasonable endeavours to ride the retainers horse at the trainers establishment at least twice per month for the purpose of forming such subjective views".

13. Clause 8.3 of the Retainer Agreement provides:

"8.3 In the case of a breach by Jockey by opting not to ride the Retainer’s horse (unless injury) damages are to be liquidated and assessed at a sum of minimum £30,000 per race not ridden".

14. It can be seen that Clause 6 imposes two principal obligations on the defendant. First, there is a positive obligation to ride Native Khan when requested to do so. Secondly, there is a negative obligation, namely not to ride a rival horse in any race where the defendant has been requested to ride Native Khan.

==========================

so the contract says Fallon at a minimum has to pay the owner GBP 30k where breaking his obligation to ride Native Khan.

but it does not say what he has to pay when breaking the additional obligation not to ride against Native Khan, and this was one factor in injuncting him from breaking that additional obligation.

[Author]

Posts