Absalom v Greyhound Racing New South Wales ABN 61018166136

The matter before the court was a challenge by Absalom to the implementation of a policy by Greyhound Racing New South Wales (GRNSW), alleging that it was inconsistent with the Rules and not authorised by the Greyhound Racing Act 2017 (NSW). Absalom contended that GRNSW's policy to provide water in the kennel at the racetrack was inconsistent with their duty to prevent harm to dogs, particularly in relation to a specific dog. The court was tasked with determining whether GRNSW's policy was indeed inconsistent with the Rules and unauthorised by the Act, and whether such inconsistency undermined the duty to prevent harm to dogs.

The court examined the provisions of the Act and the Rules to ascertain whether GRNSW's policy was authorised and consistent with the legislative framework. It was established that the Act imposed a duty on GRNSW to ensure the welfare of dogs, including the prevention of harm. The Rules further outlined the specific procedures to be followed in managing the welfare of dogs at racetracks, including the provision of water. The court also considered the potential for harm to dogs, even when specific measures such as providing water in kennels were in place. The key issue was whether the duty to prevent harm was negated by the implementation of a procedure intended to enhance welfare, such as providing water.

The court held that GRNSW's policy of providing water in the kennel at the racetrack was not inconsistent with the Rules or unauthorised by the Act. The provision of water was a measure designed to ensure the welfare of dogs, and while there might be instances where a particular dog could harm itself despite such measures, this did not render the policy inconsistent or unauthorised. The court concluded that the duty to prevent harm to dogs was not undermined by the procedure of providing water, as the policy was in line with the overall legislative intent to protect the welfare of dogs. Therefore, Absalom's challenge to the policy was dismissed.

GRNSW was found to have acted within its legislative authority, and the policy was deemed consistent with the Rules and authorised by the Act. The court did not make any further orders, as the primary contentions were resolved in favour of GRNSW.