The description of the finishing line in the sailing instructions was incomplete and ambiguous, and the line, as actually laid, did not correspond with the sailing instructions. The leading boat, Laser 85342, lost time and places identifying and crossing the finishing line intended by race committee. She requested redress.

The chairman of the protest committee had taken part in the race, a fact accepted by Laser 85342. It later became known that the chairman had won his class. The protest committee refused redress on the grounds that the very vagueness of the sailing instruction entitled the race committee to make its own interpretation. Laser 85342 appealed.

Laser 85342’s appeal is upheld. The case is returned to the protest committee to decide the redress to be awarded.

The sailing instruction was ambiguous, confusing, and inadequate. It is well established that in such circumstances, when a reasonable doubt exists as to the interpretation of a sailing instruction, it must be resolved in favour of the competitor.

It is accepted that sometimes, unavoidably, fellow competitors sit on a protest committee, but it is nevertheless undesirable. This is particularly so at redress hearings where the giving or not of redress must potentially affect both the race committee and the competitors. In such cases all competitors have, to a greater or lesser extent, a conflict of interest. The chairman of the protest committee in this case would have been well advised to refrain from serving on it.

A person with a conflict of interest does not cease to be such because a party to the hearing is willing to accept that person as a member of the protest committee.