Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria - [2017] VSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2016 02106

DAVID DAWSON	Applicant
v
GREYHOUND RACING VICTORIA	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 February 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 March 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 123

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review of a decision by VCAT upon review of decisions made by the Greyhound Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board – Whether or not the Tribunal amended the particulars of a charge before it for review – Whether or not the Tribunal acted beyond power by amending the particulars of a charge – Leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. Gannon	Wakefield Vogrig & Boote Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J. Hooper	Solicitor for Greyhound Racing Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

David Dawson is a registered greyhound trainer. On 12 January 2016, the stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria (‘the stewards’) charged him with breaching rules 86(q), 86(ah) and 86(o) of the Greyhound Australasian Rules (‘the Rules’). The offences were said to have occurred on 20 November 2015.

The stewards were empowered by the rules to hear and determine the rule 86(q) charge. They did so and disqualified Mr Dawson for 12 months. The other two charges are deemed by the Greyhound Racing Victoria Local Rules[1] to be ‘serious offences’ and must be heard by the Greyhound Racing Victoria Appeals and Disciplinary Board (‘the Board’). Mr Dawson appealed the stewards’ decision on the rule 86(q) charge. That appeal was also required to be heard before the Board.[2] Thus the Board had before it three charges arising from the one set of circumstances: two charges to be heard at first instance, and one appeal from the stewards.
[1]Local Rule 47.1, 47.3..
[2]Local Rule 23.1.

On 2 March 2016, the Board found Mr Dawson not guilty of breaching rule 86(q), but guilty of breaching the rule 86(ah) and 86(o), first instance charges. Mr Dawson was disqualified for 12 months, to be effective from 7 March 2016.

Mr Dawson applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) under s 83OH of the Racing Act 1958 for review of the Board’s decisions. Mr Dawson’s disqualification was stayed until further order. VCAT therefore reviewed both charges that were heard at first instance by the Board. Those charges read as follows:

Charge 1
The Stewards charge [Mr Dawson] with a breach of Greyhounds Australasia Rule 86(ah) which reads as follows:
R86 Offences
A person (including an official) shall be guilty of an offence if the person-
(ah)being a registered person or person associated with greyhound racing, associates with a disqualified person for the purposes of greyhound racing;

The particulars of the charge being:
In that you did on 20 November 2015, being a registered person, associate with a disqualified person namely Mr Tony Vass, for the…

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 Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria 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] VSC 123
Decision Date: 21 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria, the respondent, Greyhound Racing Victoria, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT had reviewed decisions made by the Greyhound Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (GRADAB) in relation to the appellant, Dawson. The central issue revolved around whether VCAT had amended the particulars of the charge before it for review and, if so, whether such an amendment constituted acting beyond power. This matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining the legal boundaries of VCAT's powers in relation to the amendment of charge particulars during its review process. Specifically, the court had to consider whether VCAT had the authority to alter the particulars of a charge and, if not, whether such an alteration resulted in the Tribunal acting beyond its statutory powers. This inquiry was critical to understanding the extent of VCAT's role in reviewing GRADAB decisions and the implications of any procedural missteps.

The Supreme Court found that VCAT had indeed amended the particulars of the charge, which was an action beyond its statutory powers. The court held that the amendment of the particulars constituted a substantive alteration of the charge and, therefore, exceeded the Tribunal's authority. As a result, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, thereby affirming the appellant's position and setting a precedent on the limitations of VCAT's powers in this context.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the quashing of the VCAT decision. This ruling underscored the importance of procedural integrity in administrative law and highlighted the necessity for tribunals to adhere strictly to the statutory frameworks within which they operate.

Orders