NATIONAL COURT
Sitting on 16th February 2025 Case No . J2025 / 4 Mark Heywood KC ( Chair ), David Scott , Peter Roberts
Mr Jones and Mr Bamber appeared for Motorsport UK Ms Franklin appeared on behalf of Jonathan Moore and Martin Moore , all of whom appeared in person .
Appeals against the decisions of the Championship Stewards and the Stewards of the event – Mr Jonathan Moore
1 . Jonathan Moore , by his father Martin Moore ( together “ The Appellant ”) appeals to the National Court against two decisions arising from the final race ( round 23 ) of the final event of the Junior Sports Car Championship , at Brands Hatch Circuit on 3rd November 2024 .
2 . The race was scheduled to be held over a duration of 15 minutes . The Championship Regulations provide that points are awarded according to final classification and fastest lap , the final rounds ( rounds 22 & 23 ) attracting double points .
3 . The Appellant was driving car 12 . After 5 laps had been completed , the race was stopped by a red flag . The race was subsequently restarted but after only 2 racing lap was completed , the race was stopped by a second red flag .
4 . The Championship Stewards issued a bulletin ( Bulletin 09 , 14:27 hours ) in which , noting that the race had been stopped under General Regulation Q12.15.2 , then restarted under General Regulation Q12.15.4 , the results were classified with a lap completion of 1 lap . Accordingly , as per Championship Regulation 1.6.2 , item 3 , the race ( round 23 ) was declared a “ no contest ”, meaning no championship points were to be awarded . Nevertheless , a fastest lap was awarded . The lap in question was awarded to the driver of car 10 , “ in the first part of the race under GR Q12.15.4 .”
5 . The Appellant challenged this decision . It is not productive to go into all the details of what was a very confused and confusing series of protests and appeals , but those most relevant to our findings are set out below .
The Appeals
6 . The first appeal in time ( albeit illogically ) was the Appellant ’ s appeal to the Championship Stewards . This was held by Zoom on 12th November 2024 and was rejected . The Championship Stewards reasoned that they had no power to amend the race results , and that there had been no protest or appeal against those . They further held that ( in their opinion ) there had been no contravention of the General Regulations and made no recommendation that Motorsport UK consider an investigatory hearing . Accordingly , they upheld the decision that the race was a No Contest and declared that no points should be awarded , either for the race or the fastest lap .
Revolution - March 2025
7 . The second appeal was the Appellant ’ s appeal to the Stewards of the Event . This appeal was out of time . The Appellant stated that he had been unaware that the results had been published until so informed by the Championship Stewards on 12th November . Unfortunately , the Appellant was also unaware that the Stewards of the Event were convening to consider his appeal , which they did in his absence . The Stewards recorded that they had “ studied all the paperwork , i . e ., results documents , Motorsport UK Yearbook and Championship Regulations , in this case . We have also seen the results of the appeal to the Championship Stewards .” The Stewards ’ decision was “ that the appeal fails .” They gave their reasons as being “ that the persons involved know the regulations regarding appeals and time limits . They were in a position to check the result times , on the noticeboard , and knew the ‘ half hour ’ ruling for appeals . The Appellants have also effectively appealed the results with the Championship Stewards . An appeal which failed .”
8 . In deciding whether or not to amend the time limit pursuant to GR 6.3.1 , the only matter the Stewards had to consider ( or should have ) was whether it had been physically impossible for the appeal to be lodged in time . GR C 6.3.1 provides further that by deciding to deal with an appeal , they will be deemed to have extended the time limit . While processing the appeal , Motorsport UK ’ s Assistant Legal Counsel ( as she then was ) Ms Wooley queried whether the rejection was due to being out of time or due to content . This resulted in the production of an amended Decision by the Stewards . No doubt this was intended to be helpful , but unfortunately , there is a discrepancy between the two . The original emphasises the time limits but also states that the unsuccessful appeal to the Championship Stewards was part of the reasoning . In the clarification , that reference is removed , and the reasoning , which describes a “ Notice of Intent to Appeal against the results ” is expressed wholly in terms of extension of time .
9 . It is submitted to us that it is clear from what the Stewards recorded that this was an appeal on the merits of the appeal . Motorsport UK did not argue against their original stance that this was , at best , ambiguous . The ambiguity is such that , on balance , we agree . Accordingly , we find that , however inadvertently , the Stewards are deemed to have extended time .
>>>>> 43