Abbott v Qld All Codes Racing Industry Board - [2016] QSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Abbott v Qld All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QSC 162

PARTIES:

JUSTIN ABBOTT

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND ALL CODES RACING INDUSTRY BOARD

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS2258/16

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 June 2016

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.    The decision of the panel of stewards made on 4 February 2016 that the applicant be disqualified for a period of two years for a breach of rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules is quashed and set aside.

2.    The charge that the applicant breached rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules in that on 23 January 2016 the applicant did assault Racing Queensland’s stipendiary steward Paul Zimmerman in the vicinity of the wash bay at the training premises at 1714 Stockleigh Road, Stockleigh, by physically making contact with Mr Paul Zimmerman in the area of the head region is referred to a differently constituted panel of stewards for further hearing and consideration.

3.    The parties may make submissions in writing as to costs in not more than five pages within 14 days of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicant allegedly assaulted one of two stewards conducting an inspection at private stables, and also made derogatory remarks about the deputy chair of stewards – where the version of events, particularly as to the assault, was disputed – where the chief steward was phoned by one of the stewards both before and immediately after the alleged assault – where the chief steward made a third phone call to scratch a horse on the basis that the applicant assaulted one of his stewards – where a stewards’ inquiry was convened and chaired by the chief steward, at which the applicant was charged with breaches of the Australian Harness Racing Rules – where at the stewards’ inquiry the first two phone calls, but no details of their contents, were mentioned by witnesses – where the third phone call was mentioned only once in passing by a witness – where the applicant was found guilty and disqualified for two years in respect of the alleged assault and disqualified for three months in respect of the derogatory remarks – where the applicant sought judicial review of the decisions – whether the chief steward was disqualified from being able to sit on the panel on the ground of apprehended bias because of his involvement in the events – whether the failure to disclose the chief steward’s involvement, or to disclose that involvement fully, gave rise to an apprehension of bias or was a breach of the rules of natural justice – whether to quash both the decision relating to the assault and the decision relating to the derogatory remarks

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), ss 20(2)(a), 30(1)

Racing Act 2002 (Qld), ss 78, 79, 81

Freedman v…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Abbott v Qld All Codes Racing Industry Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QSC 162
Decision Date: 27 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abbott v Qld All Codes Racing Industry Board involves the applicant, who was found guilty of assaulting a steward and making derogatory remarks, being disqualified for a total of two years and three months by the stewards of the Queensland racing industry. The applicant sought judicial review of the decisions, challenging the validity of the disciplinary process and the disqualification. The key issues before the court were whether the chief steward's involvement in the events disqualified him from sitting on the panel due to an apprehended bias, and whether the failure to fully disclose the chief steward’s involvement constituted a breach of natural justice.

The court examined the role of the chief steward in the events leading up to the disciplinary inquiry, including the three phone calls made by the steward and the chief steward, and their potential influence on the inquiry. It was noted that the chief steward's involvement was not fully disclosed to the applicant, nor were the details of the phone calls made during the inquiry. The court concluded that the chief steward's involvement did not create an apprehension of bias but found that the failure to disclose the full extent of his involvement did breach the rules of natural justice. This breach was significant enough to warrant the quashing of the decision regarding the assault.

The court quashed the disqualification decision relating to the assault and ordered that the charge be referred to a differently constituted panel for further hearing. The derogatory remarks charge remained unaffected by the court's decision. The court also allowed the parties to make written submissions regarding the costs associated with the judicial review within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The decision of the panel of stewards made on 4 February 2016 that the applicant be disqualified for a period of two years for a breach of rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules is quashed and set aside.

2. The charge that the applicant breached rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules in that on 23 January 2016 the applicant did assault Racing Queensland’s stipendiary steward Paul Zimmerman in the vicinity of the wash bay at the training premises at 1714 Stockleigh Road, Stockleigh, by physically making contact with Mr Paul Zimmerman in the area of the head region is referred to a differently constituted panel of stewards for further hearing and consideration.

3. The parties may make submissions in writing as to costs in not more than five pages within 14 days of this order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Abbott v Qld All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QSC 162
PARTIES:	JUSTIN ABBOTT (applicant) v QUEENSLAND ALL CODES RACING INDUSTRY BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS2258/16
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	27 July 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 June 2016
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1. The decision of the panel of stewards made on 4 February 2016 that the applicant be disqualified for a period of two years for a breach of rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules is quashed and set aside. 2. The charge that the applicant breached rule 231(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules in that on 23 January 2016 the applicant did assault Racing Queensland’s stipendiary steward Paul Zimmerman in the vicinity of the wash bay at the training premises at 1714 Stockleigh Road, Stockleigh, by physically making contact with Mr Paul Zimmerman in the area of the head region is referred to a differently constituted panel of stewards for further hearing and consideration. 3. The parties may make submissions in writing as to costs in not more than five pages within 14 days of this order.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicant allegedly assaulted one of two stewards conducting an inspection at private stables, and also made derogatory remarks about the deputy chair of stewards – where the version of events, particularly as to the assault, was disputed – where the chief steward was phoned by one of the stewards both before and immediately after the alleged assault – where the chief steward made a third phone call to scratch a horse on the basis that the applicant assaulted one of his stewards – where a stewards’ inquiry was convened and chaired by the chief steward, at which the applicant was charged with breaches of the Australian Harness Racing Rules – where at the stewards’ inquiry the first two phone calls, but no details of their contents, were mentioned by witnesses – where the third phone call was mentioned only once in passing by a witness – where the applicant was found guilty and disqualified for two years in respect of the alleged assault and disqualified for three months in respect of the derogatory remarks – where the applicant sought judicial review of the decisions – whether the chief steward was disqualified from being able to sit on the panel on the ground of apprehended bias because of his involvement in the events – whether the failure to disclose the chief steward’s involvement, or to disclose that involvement fully, gave rise to an apprehension of bias or was a breach of the rules of natural justice – whether to quash both the decision relating to the assault and the decision relating to the derogatory remarks Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), ss 20(2)(a), 30(1) Racing Act 2002 (Qld), ss 78, 79, 81 Freedman v…