Douglas v Harness Racing Victoria

Douglas and three other applicants brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking to challenge disciplinary decisions made against them by Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) for alleged breaches of racing rules. The applicants argued that legislative amendments made to the Racing Act 1958 prior to the disciplinary decisions being made, which removed their right to a merits review, constituted an unconstitutional acquisition of their property under s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The applicants sought a declaration that the amendments were invalid and that they were entitled to a merits review of the disciplinary decisions. The court had to decide whether the applicants had an accrued right to a merits review at the time the legislative amendments were made, and if so, whether the amendments unconstitutionally deprived them of that right.

The court held that the applicants did have an accrued right to a merits review at the time the amendments were made, as their disciplinary proceedings were pending. The court found that the right to review accrued when the proceedings were pending, applying the principle from Colonial Sugar Refining Co, Ltd v Irving. The court also held that the amending legislation did not expressly or impliedly intend to deprive the applicants of their accrued right to a merits review. The transitional provisions of the amending legislation were silent on pending decisions, and reading the amending legislation and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 together did not disclose a contrary intention. The court found that any contrary intention would produce an anomalous outcome that was discordant with the context and purpose of the legislation.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, holding that the applicants were entitled to a merits review of the disciplinary decisions. The court found that the legislative amendments unconstitutionally deprived the applicants of their property without compensation. The court granted leave to appeal to the High Court.