The British Horseracing Authority has sought to delay the court action brought against it by the bookmaker Geoff Banks on the grounds that it needs more time to prepare its defence. In attempting to justify a delay, the ruling body has said it needs time to get a statement from an unnamed member of its own staff about how the BHA works.
Banks has refused to agree to a delay and said last night he did not imagine any court would be impressed by the BHA’s request. “This is a clear and simple case of failures on their part,” he said. “Why would a court be in any way interested in an explanation of what they do for a living?”
Banks’s action arises out of events at Ascot on King George day in late July, when Speculative Bid, favourite for a major televised handicap, emerged riderless from the starting stalls. The BHA’s officials botched their handling of an inquiry into the question of whether or not the horse should be regarded as a runner in the race, causing great and prolonged confusion in the betting ring with a series of contradictory announcements.
Along with some other bookmakers, Banks opted to refund stakes to Speculative Bid backers, having already paid out winning punters without the deductions that would normally be made in such circumstances. He is now suing the BHA for the loss he incurred thereby in an action raised in the County Court Business Centre, which offers a speeded-up process for straightforward claims.
A BHA lawyer wrote to Banks this week, noting that the court’s deadline for receipt of the BHA’s defence is this Saturday, 19 September, and asking for agreement to an extension of 28 days. “The BHA is preparing the relevant material for its defence, which includes a detailed witness statement from a BHA employee explaining the framework of the BHA’s regulatory operations and how the betting industry operates,” she wrote.
Banks replied that the BHA had had “plenty of time to deal with this case”. Asked on Thursday to explain the request for a delay, which comes more than a month after the BHA published its final report on the incident, a BHA spokesman would do no more than confirm that the ruling body had now applied direct to the court for an extension.
The BHA’s main line of defence in the case appears to be that it owes no duty of care to Banks or any other on-course bookmaker and cannot therefore be held responsible for any losses he sustains. In his arguments on the subject, Banks is likely to point to the fact that the BHA’s chief executive, Nick Rust, has published an apology to bookmakers “for the inconvenience and cost” caused by his officials’ actions.
