14. Viewed in this light, the Court concludes that on the balance of probabilities that there was a breach of Article 49.1.

15. This appeal is brought firstly on the basis that the stewards had erred in finding that Article 49.1 had been breached. It follows that this part of the appeal therefore fails.

16. There is however a second limb to the appeal, in that the Appellants claim that the Steward’ s Decision to disqualify Car 67 was wholly inappropriate for the breach of the regulation.

17. The Court has given this limb of the appeal considerable thought. It is obviously essential that parc fermé conditions are complied with by all competitors to ensure the fairness of the competition and to ensure technical compliance of the cars. It is the case that strict penalties will usually follow any breach.

18. In the great majority of cases, it is accepted that the penalty of disqualification is entirely appropriate, but in the present case the Court comes to the conclusion that simply pushing the car a matter of two meters under the surveillance of the camera and within the view of the Pit Lane Supervisor, means that the court can exceptionally take a different view and the penalty of disqualification is quashed. The results of the race must be amended and republished accordingly.

19. A fine of £ 10,000 is imposed in lieu of disqualification and the Appellants must pay a contribution towards costs of £ 5,000. Payment is to be made within seven days. 20. The Court makes no other orders as to costs.

David Munro, Chair 2nd June 2025

Sitting on 2nd June Case No. J2025 / 14 David Munro( Chair), David Scott, Kevin Witton Ms Sian Woolley and Mr Nick Bamber appeared on behalf of Motorsport UK

INQUIRY – BRITISH TRUCK RACING CHAMPIONSHIP RESULTS OF RACE 11, 20TH APRIL 2025 NCR Chapter 2 Appendix 7 Art. 9

1. The National Court has considered the issues arising from an order for inquiry made under NCR Ch. 2 App. 7 Art. 9 relating to the British Truck Racing Championship, Race 11 on 20th April 2025.

2. The Principal Issue was that the final classification for Race 11 records truck 101, which was driven by Martin Gibson, as finishing in third place and truck 33, driven by Neil Yates as finishing in fourth place.

3. Still photographic images taken at the start and finish lane by the TSL timekeeping cameras, make it plain that the timekeepers report was incorrect and that truck 33 finished third and truck 101 finished fourth.

4. The Chief Timekeeper accepts that the photographic evidence is conclusive, and that 3rd and 4th places were wrongly allocated.

5. The Court therefore orders that the final classification should be amended and republished without delay accordingly to reflect the actual result. 6. The court makes no orders as to costs.

David Munro, Chair 2nd June 2025

PROVIDING SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO PROJECTS THAT ENSURE A SAFER SPORT, ENABLING THE UK MOTORSPORT COMMUNITY TO UNDERTAKE THEIR TASKS SAFELY AND ENCOURAGING HIGH STANDARDS WITH THE SPORT’ S VOLUNTEERS.

britishmotorsporttrust. org

52

Revolution- June 2025