CL-2023-000064 - [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm)

The Cs submit that the phrase “any other competent authority” embraces “any” “authority” – “other” than those identified by the preceding words in the phrase (i.e., the Government, local government or the police) – which is “competent” to take “action”.

The Cs refer to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “authority”, namely a body with the “power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”. They suggest that requirement for a power or right to take action is the key. The insurance would not cover actions by rioters or demonstrators, or access problems which happen to be caused by individuals. It required intervention by a body which had the “authority” to impose the restriction in question. The Cs say that is what would be reasonably understood by a policyholder reading this cover and giving the words their natural and ordinary meaning.

The Cs point to the fact that it has been agreed between the parties that the BHA exercises an exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation, administration and governance of horseracing in Great Britain, licensing both venues and participants, and to its powers, including the ability to cancel or abandon any horse race or other sporting fixture. Its Memorandum of Association provides that it is “the governing, administrative and regulatory authority for the sport and industry of horseracing in Great Britain and to govern, regulate, promote, administer and organise horseracing in Great Britain”.

The Cs says that the authority of the BHA can also be seen from the facts that (1) the Government liaised with it as to horseracing during the pandemic; and (2) the BHA gave orders which were followed by racecourses. They point out that it is not argued by the U/Ws that the BHA or the GBGB were not competent to give these orders.

The GBGB likewise is the official regulatory body for, and licenses, greyhound racecourses in Great Britain. It uses the same terms (“governing, administrative and regulatory authority”) in its Memorandum of Association. Legislation states that the GBGB regulates its members and enforces standards in place of the Government, and membership exempts a track from needing a local authority (i.e., governmental) licence.

All of that being so, the Cs contend that the role and powers of the BHA and the GBGB would have been in the objective contemplation of a reasonable policyholder in the position of the Cs, namely a policyholder seeking to insure racecourses and greyhound tracks against BI risks. The Cs suggest that those are obvious sources of restrictions which a policyholder would have in mind, just as the Lawn Tennis Association would be contemplated for a policy insuring the All England Club, or the Football Association for a policy insuring Arsenal Football Club, or indeed Railtrack for train operators between 1996 and 2002.

The Cs also say that, if it matters, the BHA does have a quasi-public role, with the High Court retaining a supervisory jurisdiction over its decisions. They relied upon Fallon v Horseracing Regulatory Authority[2006] EWHC 2030 (QB) at [12]-[13]. I should observe that Mr Scorey submitted that this general supervisory jurisdiction was derived from the power of the Court to prevent unlawful restraint of trade (see Bradley v Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB), where Richards J referred (at [35]) to a “settled jurisdiction to grant declarations and injunctions in respect of decisions of domestic tribunals that affect a person's right to work”). I accept that, although it still must be the role or status of these “domestic tribunals” which means that their decisions can have that wide effect.