A HIGH Court award of £18,930 to a Dublin solicitor, the amount he claimed he should have won on a jackpot ticket at Punchestown races in 1989, was overturned by the Supreme Court yesterday.
The Irish Turf Club and the Irish National Hunt Steeple Chase Committee successfully appealed against the award made by Mr Justice Morris in April 1993 to Mr Andrew Madden, of Dartmouth Square, Dublin.
Mr Madden also sued Mr Cahir O'Sullivan, keeper of the match book; and Mr John Henry, clerk of the course at the meeting.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court, said the races on January 12th, 1989, were over jumps, with the exception of the sixth and last race, which was run on the flat under national hunt rules.
The Racing Board controlled the tote, and tote management provided a jackpot at Punchestown. Mr Madden entered the jackpot and selected the winning horse in the third, fourth and fifth races. In the sixth race he selected Lucky Bucket, which was second to Dell of Gold. But as Dell of Gold had run on the flat as a two year old in England, that disqualified it under the "Rules of Racing and Irish National Hunt Steeple Chase Rules".
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said the Turf Club and Steeple Chase Committee disqualified the horse on January 27th and Lucky Bucket was declared the winner.
Under the totalisator betting conditions the race result was deemed to be the result "as determined under the rules governing racing at the `all right'".
The rules also stated that "no subsequent event shall have any effect whatsoever, and when the manager has ordered winnings to be paid, no backer of any other horse in that race . . . shall be entitled to receive winnings".
That decision stood, according to the rules, even though the stewards or racing authority declared a race void or any horse was declared the winner or placed instead of horses declared at the "all right".
Mr Justice O'Flaherty concluded that no duty of care was owed by the defendants to Mr Madden in the circumstances of this case. The betting aspect of race meetings was separate from the Turf Club and the National Hunt Committee's essential function, which was to regulate and control horse races.
No doubt, said the judge, the Turf Club and National Hunt Committee would incur obligations to owners, trainers and jockeys - just as these people had obligations to the defendants.
Mr Madden's contractual relationship was with the tote management and that erected a barrier so as to prevent such close and direct relations to occur as was necessary to give rise to a duty of care between Mr Madden and the defendants.
In this case it was clear the defendants' chief function was to administer horse racing in as orderly a fashion as possible and to carry out their system of checks and balances in relation to owners, trainers and jockeys as well as horses in accordance with the rules.
The case provided a good example of how they discharged their obligation to the owners of Lucky Bucket. The matter of how gambling, whether on the tote or otherwise, was conducted belonged to a different regime for which they had no responsibility.