National Court
Sitting on 10th July 2026 Tony Scott Andrews( Chair), Adrienne Watson, David Scott
Case No. J2026 / 17
APPEAL AGAINST: Decision of the Stewards dated 7th June 2026( 12:40), Race 9( Final) on 6th June 2026, Legends Cars Championship at Brands Hatch
APPELLANT: Tyler Read
Appearing before the Court:
• Tyler Read, represented by Miss Sarah Franklin
• Mr Nick Bamber, on behalf of Motorsport UK
1. Tyler Read was a Competitor in a Race for Legends cars held at Brands Hatch over the weekend of 6th-7th June 2026.
2. At 20.17 hrs on the Saturday, he was penalised by the Clerk of the Course with a five second time penalty for“ gaining an unfair advantage”( NCR Ch. 2 Art 1.3) by overtaking three cars just as a Safety Car period was ending. The three cars were said to be circulating comparatively slowly and had dropped some considerable distance behind the train of cars following the Safety Car.
3. The Appellant accepted the Clerk’ s decision.
4. The following morning, John Mickel, the Driver of one of the three cars overtaken by Read, appealed the Clerk’ s Decision on the ground that the penalty was too lenient.
5. The Stewards obviously concurred with Mickel as at 12.40 hrs, having extended his time to Appeal, issued a decision allowing the Appeal and increasing the penalty from five to thirty seconds and also imposing penalty points.
6. Miss Franklin seeks to have that Decision set aside for the following reasons:
( 1) The Stewards had not issued a Notice stating a time and place for the Hearing
1. of her client to whom no notice of the Hearing had been given.
( 3) Mickel was not“ a party directly involved in the incident giving rise to the decision”( NCR Ch. 2 App. 4) and, as such was merely another Competitor who had no entitlement to lodge an Appeal.
( 4) The written Decision itself is defective in that:
a) it does not state the NCR said to have been breached,
b) if one assumes the Stewards built their Decision on the Clerk’ s Decision, in that they seek to penalise for“ gaining and unfair advantage”, i. e. NCR Ch. 2 Art. 1.3, it is incorrect to add penalty points as that Regulation does not appear within those referred to at Ch. 2 App. 12 Art. 1.2. a as being susceptible to the imposition of penalty points.
2. Miss Franklin asserts as submitted in her written Confirmation of Appeal, that“ the Stewards have failed to deal with this correctly and, in any event, the penalty given is wholly inappropriate.”
3. Mr Bamber, for his part, concurs with Miss Franklin’ s representations as to the procedural deficiencies in the way in which the Steward’ s Hearing was conducted but differs in that he maintains that Mickel was a party entitled to lodge an Appeal.
( 2) The Hearing had been conducted in the absence of her client to whom no notice of the Hearing had been given.
36 Revolution Magazine