Dixon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2019] QCAT 58

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dixon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 58

PARTIES:

TRISTA DIXON
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR023-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2019

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kanowski

ORDERS:

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 18 January 2018.

2. The application to review a decision is to proceed to a fresh hearing on the merits in the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – FUNCTIONS OF TRIBUNALS – where decision of original decision-maker may have been legally ineffective – whether that would affect jurisdiction of tribunal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 18(1), s 20
Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Collector of Customs (New South Wales) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 41 FLR 338
JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 502
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Alvaro (1994) 34 ALD 72
Re Upton and the Department of Transport (1997) 15 ALR 675; [1977] AATA 8
Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 248

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

T Ryan instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers

Respondent:

R Oliver

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

This decision addresses what has been termed a ‘question of jurisdiction’ that has arisen in a review proceeding.
The main proceeding involves the review of an internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission. The internal reviewer confirmed the decisions of a panel of stewards (or, at least, a panel of persons purporting to be stewards). The panel decided that Mrs Dixon, who is a licensed harness driver, had breached a rule of racing during a race. The panel further decided that Mrs Dixon was to be disqualified from harness driving for 12 months.
The review by the Tribunal was set down for hearing before Member Allen on 9 August 2018. However, the hearing did not proceed after a ‘question of jurisdiction’ was raised. Member Allen considered that further evidence and submissions were required to properly address that question.
I conducted an oral hearing on the ‘question of jurisdiction’ on 15 November 2018. Mr Ryan made oral submissions on behalf of Mrs Dixon, and he also relied on his written submissions dated 21 August 2018 and 11 September 2018. Mr Oliver made oral submissions on behalf of the Commission, and he also relied on his written submissions dated 6 September 2018. I reserved my decision. After considering the matter, I sought further written submissions from the parties addressing certain issues. Written submissions were then provided by Mr Ryan dated 8 February 2019 and 22 February 2019. Written submissions dated 8 February 2019 and 26 February 2019 were received from the Commission.
I have placed the phrase ‘question of jurisdiction’ in quotation marks because neither party submits that the Tribunal lacks…

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 Dixon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission 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: [2019] QCAT 58
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dixon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, the central issue before the court was whether the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) had the jurisdiction to review a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC). The case arose when Dixon challenged a decision made by the QRIC, which was subsequently reviewed internally by the same body. The dispute then moved to QCAT, where Dixon sought a further review. The primary legal issue was whether QCAT had the jurisdiction to review the internal review decision of the QRIC, particularly in light of potential legal ineffectiveness of the original decision-making process.

The court considered the principles governing the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals and whether the QCAT could review decisions that may have been legally ineffective from the outset. The court reasoned that the jurisdiction of QCAT to review decisions is broad, and it extends to reviewing both the original decisions of administrative bodies and their internal review decisions. The court further determined that the potential legal ineffectiveness of the original decision did not preclude QCAT from exercising its jurisdiction. The court held that it was within QCAT’s purview to assess the merits of the case, including the legality of the internal review process, as long as the tribunal had the authority to review the decision in question.

Consequently, the court found that QCAT did indeed have the jurisdiction to review the internal review decision of the QRIC. It held that the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits, allowing Dixon to present arguments regarding the merits of the decision and the internal review process. The court's decision underscored the importance of tribunals having the authority to ensure that administrative decisions are made lawfully and fairly, even when the initial decision-making process may have had legal shortcomings. The orders issued by the court confirmed QCAT's jurisdiction and mandated that the application to review the decision would proceed to a fresh hearing on the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 18 January 2018.

2. The application to review a decision is to proceed to a fresh hearing on the merits in the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction.

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

As the matter is not before me for a final hearing, I will not attempt to resolve whether questions of appointments and processes before the Commission could be relevant, or even determinative, in a merits review.Conclusion The Tribunal has jurisdiction, and the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Dixon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 58
PARTIES:	TRISTA DIXON (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR023-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	8 March 2019
HEARING DATE:	15 November 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Kanowski
ORDERS:	1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 18 January 2018. 2. The application to review a decision is to proceed to a fresh hearing on the merits in the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – FUNCTIONS OF TRIBUNALS – where decision of original decision-maker may have been legally ineffective – whether that would affect jurisdiction of tribunal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 18(1), s 20 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246 Collector of Customs (New South Wales) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 41 FLR 338 JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 502 Secretary, Department of Social Security v Alvaro (1994) 34 ALD 72 Re Upton and the Department of Transport (1997) 15 ALR 675; [1977] AATA 8 Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 248
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	T Ryan instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers
Respondent:	R Oliver