12. The definition of“ persons” includes all and any, but not limited to, participants, coaches, volunteers, teams, employees, any person howsoever connected to an entry.( NCR 2026 Edition 4 Ch. 1 App. 1- Definitions and Nomenclature).
13. On this basis it was asserted that even though the evidence was that Mr Woollen had acted without the consent or knowledge of the appellants, they were liable for his actions.
14. The Court gave due consideration to this argument, and it is plain that the entrant bears prime responsibility for the actions of all persons connected with an entry, howsoever they are connected, but there must nonetheless be sufficient evidence of a connection. That evidence is absent in the present case. of Car 40 at the time of Mr Wollen’ s actions, and he had authority to be present granted by was of the pass provided by SRO.
20. For the reasons set out in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeal is upheld and the Court orders that the appeal fees should be returned.
21. No orders are made as to costs.
20th October David Munro, Chair
15. While Mr Woollen had a pass entitling him to be in Parc Fermé, it had not been issued by the organisers, but by the promotors, SRO. It was not issued to enable him to act on behalf of any particular team and was generic in nature.
16. Mr Woollen was not an employee of the entrant, and in no sense could he reasonably be regarded as a member of the entrant’ s team. He had no contractual relationship with them and was not acting as their agent. They were not in a position to control his actions and there is no evidence that they had any knowledge of them. They were not present at the relevant time.
17. The appellants had left a prominently displayed notice on the roof of the car which gave the clear instruction“ DO NOT TOUCH”.
18. There was a barrier around the car. In these circumstances it is hard to see what more they could have done to prevent a breach of Article 49.
19. For the sake of completeness, the Court is unable to accept the argument that Article 49 did not apply to the pit garages given the provisions of Article 49( 3). There was sufficient security in place – two members of the scrutineering team were examining the front splitter
Revolution Magazine 43