19
• In the interim the HPA asked that the current endorsement criteria remain in place for the 2017 season because of the impossibility at this late stage of identifying
enough sufficiently experienced staff to train and care for the horses.
• On 18 November 2016 Mr Clifford responded on behalf of the SSHD, rejecting the request.
• The HPA wrote to Mr Clifford again,by email dated 27 November 2016,reiterating the request for the endorsement criteria to be re-instated on an interim basis and
setting out in more detail the very significant practical problems arising from their suspension. Further representations were sent to the SSHD on 2 December 2016
and 14 December 2016, addressing both the proposed substantive change to the endorsement criteria, as well as the need for the pre-existing criteria to be applied
to the 2017 season.
• The SSHD said a decision would be provided by Friday 16 December. Nothing was heard. In a follow up call on Monday 19 December between the HPA’s solicitors
(Charles Russell Speechlys “CRS”) and Mr Beach, he said that he could not now confirm when a final decision would be provided.
• On 21 December 2016 CRS sent a letter before claim, with time for reply abridged to 30 December 2016. On 22 December 2016 the SSHD acknowledged receipt but
indicated that a substantive response would not be available until 4 January 2016.
• On 4 January 2016 the SSHD responded substantively, contending that:
– There had not been a failure to consult or provide sufficient notice of the proposed changes to the endorsement criteria as the HPA had been aware of the SSHD’s
concerns since July 2015;
– There was nothing in the Code preventing the SSHD from seeking amendment to the endorsement criteria for an upcoming season;
– Since the HPA had not agreed to the SSHD’s proposed changes, and since the previous criteria allegedly failed to comply with the principles of the sportsperson
routes, there should be no endorsements under the previous criteria, until a final decision on the new criteria was made;
– There had been no commitment to respond to the HPA’s representations by 16 December 2016. The SSHD’s officials were consulting with Ministers and would
make a decision ‘as soon as possible’. However, at this time, they were ‘unable to give a specific deadline’.
Upon receipt of this letter, a decision was taken to seek the opinion of Counsel as to the merits of a judicial review application.The HPA has instructed Judith Farbey
QC and David Lemer. In light of the advice received, the HPA took the decision to issue proceedings and this was effected with an application requesting a hearing on
interim relief in 14 days with the file to be placed before a judge in 48 hours.
As part of the application for permission to seek Judicial Review, HPA asked for an urgent hearing on the ability to issue endorsements under Tier 5. This hearing was
listed for 25 January 2017. However, late on 19 January 2017, the Home Office unexpectedly provided revised criteria for sponsor licences and endorsement of
sponsorships by the HPA and stated that it would allow the HPA to endorse, but only for those eligible under the new criteria (see hpa-polo.co.uk).This meant that the
hearing for interim relief (seeking removal of the prior suspension) on Wednesday 25 January could not take place, as the Home Office had lifted that suspension and
provided new criteria .
We have been considering the detail and wording of the new criteria with the Home Office.The new criteria did not take account of the realities of how polo is played
in the UK, and the time frame for a change for 2017 remains unreasonable. The criteria did not include any avenue for players or grooms in polo below 15 goal, and
in their letter lifting the ban the Home Office acknowledges very clearly that the criteria will be damaging to low goal polo as a whole, and its development.
Further discussions have been held with the Home Office and we are waiting for confirmation of the outcome of those discussions, and any decision on future
proceedings for the Judicial Review will be taken following further legal advice. We will do our best to inform you of that outcome as soon as we can.
C H I E F E X E C U T I V E
