Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:
1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).
2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)
This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.
We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.
JN052.pdf
1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).
2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)
This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.
We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.
JN052.pdf