b) The information and / or evidence required by the above provision must be supplied at the time of making the Protest. c) A failure to comply with this procedural requirement, when all the information is available at the time of the Protest submission, cannot be retrospectively‘ cured’ by later supplying necessary information and / or evidence.

21. Third Issue – Validity of Right of Review For the avoidance of any doubt the National Court determines that it does have jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the Stewards’ Right to Review and relies upon:

a) NCR Ch. 2 App. 5 Art. 1.14 which provides that Motorsport UK may refer“ any matter to the Court for investigation or Inquiry”; and b) NCR Ch. 2 App. 7 Art 9.1 provides that Motorsport UK may“ in its entire discretion order an Inquiry into any matter arising under or by virtue of these NCR”.

22. NCR Ch. 2 App. 10 Art. 1.1 provides that:“… a party has the right to request the review of a decision if, in Competitions forming part of an ASN Permitted Championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series, a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned.”

23. The relevant“ Decision” was the Stewards’ rejection of Sam Pollitt’ s Protest against Kart 183 for non-compliance with the provisions of NCR Ch. 2 App. 9 Art. 1.10 and, in particular, the failure to provide the dictated information in the Protest document.

24. The only“ new element” would seem to be the existence of the photographs of Rob Holland which Sam Pollitt was told about in the Grandstand immediately prior to the start of the Mini Inter Final. The existence of these photographs and the identity of Rob Holland were therefore known to Sam Pollitt at the time of the Decision concerned. It follows that Sam Pollitt did not have the right to request the Review. c) If the transponder was not compliant, whether or not the non-compliant positioning of the transponder had any material impact upon the finishing time and place of Competitor 183 having regard to the purposes of the transponder. Taking each matter in turn: a) Race Results The Court holds that Competitor 183( X) was Disqualified by a flawed judicial process and that his disqualification should accordingly be overturned with him being reinstated in the Race Results in 2nd place. b) Compliance of Transponder fitted to Kart 183 Unfortunately, this Inquiry holds that the Karting Yearbook F2 is not clear and is capable of being interpreted in several ways. F2 states“ the transponder must be fitted in an approximately upright position( i. e. with the‘ R’ clip to the top) on the back of the seat fitted at a height from the ground at 25 cm + 5cm measured to the point of the transponder”. However, F2.1 states“ Transponders must be mounted in accordance with the manufacturer’ s recommendations”. The manufacturer’ s instructions clearly state a maximum fitted height of 30cm however they do not state a minimum height. Accordingly, it is not clear that if the transponder is fitted as per the manufacturer’ s instructions it must also satisfy the requirements of F2. c) As this Inquiry is unable to find conclusively that the transponder as fitted to Kart 183 was / was not compliant the National Court will decline to answer this question.

Guy Spollen, Chair 21st November 2025

25. Fourth Issue – Outcome and Sporting Fairness The National Court is asked to determine: a) The appropriate Race Results. b) Whether or not the transponder fitted to Kart 183 was compliant with the requirements stipulated by Motorsports UK’ s Karting Yearbook 2025.

60

Revolution- December 2025