Page 100 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

protest committee to change the redress granted to the was given every opportunity to make out her case
four boats to ‘a more appropriate basis’, as the protest during the discussions that followed.
committee had acted incorrectly in some unspecified The protest committee is therefore now required to
way in deciding the method of awarding redress in the
previous case, and that this had, also in some decide this as a valid request for redress. Based on what
it learned during the hearing and subsequent discussion,
unspecified way, adversely affected her.
it is to find facts, draw conclusions, and either award or
The protest committee, examining the form before refuse redress. This specifically excludes consideration
starting the hearing, decided that Really Random had of any matters in the appeal that come within the scope
not been a party to the earlier hearings, and so was not (in the appellant's words) of ' further information (that)
entitled to ask for a reopening. It then decided that the has come to light since the original request was made',
document might rank as a request for redress, but that since these would not have been before it had the
there was nothing in the form to indicate that Really request been decided at the time. WS Case 80 requires a
Random’s score or place in a race or series had been or protest committee to limit its findings to the issue
might be made significantly worse by some improper described in the protest. Really Random is therefore not
action of the earlier protest committee – indeed, it was entitled to offer further evidence, and the decision shall
not clear what was the basis for the request. be communicated in writing to the appellant and the
RYA. If Really Random is not satisfied with the
The protest committee called Really Random, advised decision, she is entitled to ask for a reopening under
her that her request to reopen was invalid, but that it rule 66 or to appeal under rule 70.1.
would consider the form as a request for redress were
Really Random to modify the form to make clear how Really Random’s request, East Down YC
the previous decision might be improper, and how it had
affected Really Random’s score. Really Random RYA Note – the subsequent decision of the protest committee was
declined to do so, and after some 45 minutes of that there were no grounds to give redress, and the request for redress
was refused.
argument about this between Really Random and the
protest committee, the hearing was declared closed for RYA 2002/2
invalidity, as the request had failed to indicate which Rule 16.1, Changing Course
rule or principle had been broken or ignored by the
earlier protest committee. When a right-of-way boat changes course and the give-
way boat is unable to keep clear, despite acting
Really Random appealed, seeking either a reopening or promptly in a seamanlike way, room has not been given.
a redress hearing, noting that further information had
come to light since the original ‘hearing’.
DECISION
The appeal is upheld to the extent that the protest Wind
committee is to decide the request for redress.
Really Random lodged a form asking for the reopening W3 W2 W1
of a hearing to which she was not a party. The protest
committee correctly found that she was not entitled to L3
make such a request, since rule 66 applies only to L2 L1
parties to the original hearing. However, having
received a written request which, unlike the claim in
case RYA 1994/3, had at least the beginnings of a SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
request for redress, the protest committee was required L and W, each 7m sportsboats, were reaching in a force
by rule 63.1 to hear the claim as a request for redress in 2-3 wind. W, some 3m to windward, was flying a
the manner prescribed by rules 63.2 through to 63.6. spinnaker. L, slightly ahead, was not. L luffed
Having correctly opened a hearing the first duty was to vigorously, and W promptly tried to bear away astern of
establish the validity of the claim. The protest her. She did not succeed, and there was contact. L
committee decided that the content was insufficient to protested and was herself disqualified under rule 16.1.
proceed. The protest committee was incorrect in this. She appealed, saying it was a clear case of a windward
The wording on his form indicates that the claimant boat forcing a passage, and that she, L, was not able to
considered that his boat was adversely affected because avoid the contact. The protest committee observed that
the protest committee had acted incorrectly in deciding W had to alter course to try to keep clear, and that
the method of awarding redress in the previous case. bearing away presented the better opportunity to avoid a
This is sufficient for a request for redress under rule 62 violent impact.
to be valid, and the protest committee was required to DECISION
proceed with the hearing of evidence and arguments of L’s appeal is dismissed.
Really Random.
W was required by rule 11 to keep clear of L, and, prior
The questions it asked of Really Random when to the incident, was doing so. L luffed violently. W tried
addressing validity were precisely those on which a to keep clear in a seamanlike way but was unable to do
substantive decision would have been based. In effect, so. L did not therefore give W room to keep clear when
the hearing of the request continued and Really Random she changed course and so broke rule 16.1.

100