NATIONAL COURT
10 . In his statement , Mr Thompson referred to Mr Groombridge as “ the most senior person left at the circuit that represents Motorsport UK ( by the fact that the 750MC is a recognised club under the Motorsport UK banner .” He and Mr Graham maintained that , as Mr Graham put is , “ we had notified 750MC of the intention to appeal the result and as far as I am concerned we discharged our obligation to notify of an appeal . It was also reasonable to assume that Giles Groombridge would do what he said he would . We also asked him for a review ( at his suggestion ) which we later also confirmed .”
11 . In his statement , Mr Graham describes the notification to Mr Groombridge as “ the absolute earliest that we could have given notification of an appeal …” Mr Graham also contended that “ The Blue Book prescribes “ as soon as reasonably possible .” Whether that is correct or not , the reference is irrelevant since the 2025 National Competition Rules applied . The provisions of Ch2 , App4 , art 1.10 clearly set out the details required , and it was the responsibility of the competitors to ensure these were complied with . The appeal was not Mr Groombridge ’ s responsibility , even though he did helpfully offer to make a note . The note was not put before us , so we cannot know exactly what it contained or how it compared to the requirements .
12 . On 31st October 2024 , Mr Graham and his team submitted particularised details of their appeal , by email , again to Mr Groombridge . Disappointed by what he saw as lack of progress , Mr Graham emailed Mr Groombridge on 15th November ( copying to Ms Wooley at Motorsport UK ), asking Mr Groombridge if he was the right person to enquire as to the state of his appeal . Mr Groombridge replied that , technically , he probably was not , but that he had spoken to Mr Murphy , who had been one of the assistant Clerks of the Course and who had charge of the matter while the Senor Clerk of the Course was unwell . Hearing nothing more by 21st November , Mr Graham again emailed Mr Groombridge ( again copying to Motorsport UK ), who again said that he would chase up Mr Murphy . By 28th November , Mr Graham had still received no reply and repeated his request to Mr Groombridge . This time , Mr Groombridge replied that the Stewards of the Event had convened earlier that day , and he had been asked to pass on some documents to Mr Graham , which we assume included their decision .
The Decision of the Stewards of the Event
13 . The Stewards of the Event had convened electronically on 29th November 2024 to consider the admissibility of Mr Graham ’ s appeal . They decided unanimously that the appeal was inadmissible , giving as their reason that “ the competitor had ample opportunity to submit an appeal ( or indicate their intention to appeal ) within the permitted time scale as laid down under NCR Ch2 , Ap4 , art 1.23 ( e ). The appeal was in fact submitted electronically to 750MC on 31st October , some 5 days after the event .”
14 . In his statement , Mr Graham criticises the fact that the Decision refers to the race venue as the Silverstone National , not Grand Prix circuit . We do not consider that to have been significant . He goes on to question whether Mr Groombridge advised the Stewards of his appeal , and if not , suggests that amounted to negligence in Mr Groombridge ’ s duties as a director of the club . Mr Graham believed that , in the absence of the race officials , it was Mr Groombridge ’ s duty to report the appeal “ as I imagine he would have had all the contact details to inform the correct parties of the appeal … in any event he promised the boys that he “ would make a note .” That assumption may have been correct , but the contact details could easily have been obtained by Mr Graham and his team , either on request of an official such as Mr Groombridge , or , as Motorsport UK officials , from that organisation .
15 . We cannot accept this argument . On the evidence before us , taken at its highest , Mr Groombridge made a note of the fact that Mr Graham ’ s team wished to appeal . He was not asked to do anything more and we deprecate the suggestion that Mr Groombridge was in any way negligent . The responsibility for lodging a valid appeal ( including any material that might influence the Stewards to exercise their discretion to extend time , if called into question ) lay with Mr Graham from start to finish . We have taken into account that for personal reasons , there were many demands on Mr Graham ’ s time in the five days before the detailed submission of the points to raise in his appeal , but as the evidence shows , there were other team members to assist .
16 . We have concluded that , in the circumstances , the decision of the Stewards of the Event was not an unreasonable exercise of their discretion , and we uphold it .
17 . In reaching this decision , we have considered all the material in the extensive bundle , whether advanced in orally in the appeal hearing or not . Where those are not referred to , it is because we have not found them to assist us in reaching this decision . 18 . The appeal is dismissed . The appellant is directed to pay £ 500 towards the costs of these proceedings .
Mark Heywood KC , Chair 16th February 2025
>>>>>
Revolution - March 2025
41