Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Driver’s Appeal Against Disqualification Upheld

An appeal by Mr M. D. a specification for shock Cottle, of Dunedin, against absorbers, as would be neceshis disqualification from the sary for a successful protest. Benson and Hedges long dis- The court said that there tance saloon car race at was no bar on changing the Pukekohe on November 1 fluid in shock absorbers, just last year has been upheld as there was no bar on changby the stewards of the Royal ing the air in the tyres, the Automobile Club living in oil in the sump, or the brake New Zealand. fluid.

It was the second appeal against the disqualification, an earlier one to the Motorsport Association (New Zealand) appeal board in December having been unsuccessful.

Members of the Court were Messrs A. A. Coates, S.M., of Auckland, J. N. Lemon, of Dunedin, and T. M. N. Rodgers, of Palmerston North. Mr H. J. Ross appeared for

As a result of the last appeal, Mr Cottle’s car has been re-instated in fourth over-all position and first position in its class in the race. Mr Cottle's car, which had been driven during the race by G. Sprague and B. Cottle, was disqualified for alleged modifications to the rear shock absorbers.

Mr M. D. Cottle and Mr R. D. Burnard appeared for the New Zealand International Grand Prix Association.

The appeal was based on two main grounds: that the original protest hearing was invalid, and that the disqualification of the car was invalid as it did comply with the supplementary regulations of the meeting. The appeal court ruled that the appeal must succeed on both counts, as the protest was heard by persons other than the stewards of the meeting, as required, and because the supplementary regulations did not specifically bar the changing of fluid in the shock absorbers, as had been done to Mr Cottle’s car and had been the cause of the protest. The court decided that damping fluid was not a component in its own right and that no-one could produce

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19700228.2.159

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32234, 28 February 1970, Page 19

Word Count
340

Driver’s Appeal Against Disqualification Upheld Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32234, 28 February 1970, Page 19

Driver’s Appeal Against Disqualification Upheld Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32234, 28 February 1970, Page 19

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert