B had received money in return for sensitive information about horses which breached the Jockey Club’s rules and was therefore disqualified for 5 years from working in racing. CA said that while it had no ability to hear judicial review claims from bodies such as the Jockey Club, it did have a similar “supervisory jurisdiction” that required disciplinary boards and courts had to have regard to the circumstances that required disqualification where that penalty deprived a person of his right to work.
Richards J (1st Instance- endorsed by Lord Phillips MR): “The function of the court is not to take the primary decision but to ensure that the primary decision-maker has operated within lawful limits. It is a review function, very similar to that of the court on judicial review…In each case the essential concern should be with the lawfulness of the decision taken: whether the procedure was fair, whether there was any error of law, whether any exercise of judgment or discretion fell within the limits open to the decision maker, and so forth”. He refuses to employ proportionality, as this is an evaluative process rather than a supervisory one. Hence “the decision is unlawful only if it falls outside the range of reasonable responses to the question of where a fair balance lies between the conflicting interests.” How is this different to Wednesbury unreasonableness?