Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control

Sir David Eady rejected the manager’s application for interim relief requiring the BBBC to restore his licence.  The manager alleged that the BBBC had disciplined him because he participated in an event sanctioned by a German boxing body that it did not recognise, contrary to free movement and competition law and procedural unfairness.   The application failed, first, because it was premature.  An appeal was pending before the independent Stewards of Appeal, due to be heard in July.  Without it being necessary to decide whether the Stewards constituted an arbitral or a domestic body under Kaneria, the complaint ought to have been brought before them.  Second there was no triable issue.  On the Meca Medina test, it was lawful for a sports governing body to have a rule that allowed a party to be disciplined for actions assessed to be inimical to the sport, and the decision in relation to Mr Baker was plainly based on a such an assessment, which a Court would be slow to look behind, and was not made because the BBBC recognised a different German body to the one involved in the event.  Third any damage to Mr Baker would not be removed by the temporary restoration of his licence.  Damage flowed from his being found guilty and the concern that if he failed in his appeal in July, he would not have a licence then.  If there were any damage it was compensable in damages, in contrast to the BBBC’s damage as a sports governing body.  Fourth, although this was not dispositive, Mr Baker had delayed. 

The full judgment can be read here:  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2074.html

Adam Lewis QC appeared for the BBBC in the High Court.  Nick De Marco represents the BBBC in the appeal proceedings.  The BBBC’s solicitors are Gareth Williams and Tracey Singlehurst-Ward at Hugh James.