Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board - [2017] QCAT 72

CITATION:	Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2017] QCAT 72
PARTIES:	Ronald Douglas Ball (Applicant)
v
Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR039-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Guthrie
DELIVERED ON:	3 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The reviewable decision is set aside and a new decision substituted that: a) Grounds 1, 3 and 4 are established in that Mr Ball has breached GAR 86(af), 86(q) and 86(d) as worded at the date of the conduct; b) Ground 2, the alleged breach of GAR 86(aa) is not established; and c) For the breaches of the GAR, Mr Ball is warned off for 10 years from the date of the original decision, 26 May 2015.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – Greyhound Trainers – where greyhound trainer sought review of decision to warn him off for ten years – where reviewable decision found greyhound trainer engaged in live baiting – where reviewable decision found greyhound trainer breached Greyhound Australasia Rules – where tribunal conducts fresh hearing on the merits – whether greyhound trainer engaged in live baiting – whether greyhound trainer breached Greyhound Australasia Rules EVIDENCE – PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF SATISFACTION – SUFFICIENCY – GENERALLY – where tribunal considering occupational regulation matter – where greyhound trainer attended stewards inquiry – where transcript of stewards’ inquiry admitted before tribunal – where video footage from two separate cameras – where quality of video footage imperfect – where timestamps on footage from two separate cameras inconsistent – where video footage admitted before tribunal – whether evidence sufficient to make findings of fact Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 10, s 20, s 21(2), s 24, s 33 Racing Act 2002 (Qld) s 4(1), s 149, s 149S, s 152A Greyhound Australasia Rules rule 86 (aa), 86(af), 86(q) and 86(d) Local Rules of Racing (Greyhound Racing) LR2, LR3A Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 369, applied Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, applied Connolly v Greyhound Racing Victoria Stewards (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 1180, considered Edmondson v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 70, discussed El-Issa v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCATA 280, applied Green v Racing Queensland [2012] QCATA 269, cited Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 261, applied Kennedy v Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart [2012] QCAT 66, cited Kunde v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 430, discussed Lawlor v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 255, cited McKenzie v Acting Assistant Commissioner Tony Wright [2011] QCATA 309, cited New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177, applied Re Confidential v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] AATA 112, cited Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 241, cited

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 Ball v Queensland 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: [2017] QCAT 72
Decision Date: 3 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board, the respondent, a greyhound trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the appellant, the Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board, to warn him off for ten years. The decision followed a stewards’ inquiry that found the respondent engaged in live baiting and breached Greyhound Australasia Rules. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) conducted a fresh hearing on the merits of the appeal and found that the Board’s decision should be set aside and replaced with a new decision.

The central legal issues before the tribunal were whether the evidence was sufficient to support findings that the respondent engaged in live baiting and whether he breached the Greyhound Australasia Rules. The tribunal considered the quality and consistency of video footage from two separate cameras, which had been admitted as evidence. It also considered the transcript of the stewards’ inquiry. The tribunal found that while there were inconsistencies in the video footage, the evidence was sufficient to support findings that the respondent engaged in live baiting and breached certain Greyhound Australasia Rules.

In setting aside the Board’s decision, the tribunal noted that while the evidence supported findings of live baiting and certain breaches of the Greyhound Australasia Rules, it did not support the finding that the respondent breached another rule. The tribunal also noted that the Board had imposed a warning period of ten years from the date of the original decision, which was 26 May 2015. The tribunal substituted a new decision, which found that the respondent had breached certain Greyhound Australasia Rules and that he was to be warned off for ten years from the date of the original decision. The tribunal also found that the allegation that the respondent breached another rule was not established.

The final orders of the tribunal were that the reviewable decision be set aside and replaced with a new decision that the respondent had breached certain Greyhound Australasia Rules and that he be warned off for ten years from the date of the original decision. The tribunal also found that the allegation that the respondent breached another rule was not established.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The reviewable decision is set aside and a new decision substituted that:

a) Grounds 1, 3 and 4 are established in that Mr Ball has breached GAR 86(af), 86(q) and 86(d) as worded at the date of the conduct;

b) Ground 2, the alleged breach of GAR 86(aa) is not established; and

c) For the breaches of the GAR, Mr Ball is warned off for 10 years from the date of the original decision, 26 May 2015.

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.