Druery v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2020] QCAT 258

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Druery v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 258

PARTIES: RUSSELL JAMES DRUERY

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR398-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

ORDERS:
1.   Russell James Druery is granted leave to be legally represented in these proceedings.

2.   Russell James Druery’s Application to extend time in which to file the Application to review a decision filed 10 December 2019 is refused.

3.   The Application to review a decision filed 10 December 2019 is dismissed.

4.   Any Application for costs by a party is to be made by filing in the Tribunal two (2) copies and providing to the other party one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in support of the Application for costs by 4:00pm on 3 August 2020.

5.   If any Application for costs is made:

(a)    the other party must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in response to the party making the Application for costs by 4:00pm on 24 August 2020;

(b)   the party making the Application for costs must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in reply to the other party by 4:00pm on 14 September 2020;

(c)    the Application for costs will be determined on the papers on the basis of any documents filed unless a party requests an oral hearing not before 4:00 pm on 14 September 2020.

6.   If no Application for costs is made in accordance with Order 4 then there shall be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – application to extend time to review a decision

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TIME, EXTENSION AND ABRIDGMENT – where application to review a decision filed approximately four years out of time – whether application for an extension of time should be granted

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 20, s 24, s 29, s 33, s 43, s 61

Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 149V, s 149ZY, s 152, s 152A,
s 153

Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 309

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCAT 229
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
Kunde v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 430
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68

Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

MJ Jackson instructed by Behlau Murakami Grant, Lawyers

Respondent:

Clayton Utz

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Druery seeks review of a decision of the Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board (‘QRDB’) dated 6 November…

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 Druery 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: [2020] QCAT 258
Decision Date: 2 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Druery v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved an application by Russell James Druery to extend the time to review a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission. The application was filed approximately four years after the original decision, which was well beyond the statutory limit. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issue before QCAT was whether the application for an extension of time to review the decision should be granted, considering the significant delay in filing the application. QCAT considered the principles of procedural fairness and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

QCAT held that granting the extension would not be consistent with the statutory framework governing such applications. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for reviewing decisions to ensure that tribunals can efficiently manage their caseloads and maintain the integrity of their processes. QCAT also noted that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, nor had he demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time. Consequently, QCAT refused the application for an extension of time and dismissed the application to review the decision.

The orders made by QCAT included granting Russell James Druery leave to be legally represented, refusing his application to extend the time for filing the review application, and dismissing the review application itself. The orders also detailed the procedures for any subsequent applications for costs, including deadlines for filing and responding to such applications, and conditions under which the costs application would be determined. If no application for costs was made within the specified timeframe, no order as to costs would be made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Russell James Druery is granted leave to be legally represented in these proceedings.

2. Russell James Druery’s Application to extend time in which to file the Application to review a decision filed 10 December 2019 is refused.

3. The Application to review a decision filed 10 December 2019 is dismissed.

4. Any Application for costs by a party is to be made by filing in the Tribunal two (2) copies and providing to the other party one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in support of the Application for costs by 4:00pm on 3 August 2020.

5. If any Application for costs is made:

(a) the other party must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in response to the party making the Application for costs by 4:00pm on 24 August 2020;

(b) the party making the Application for costs must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence in reply to the other party by 4:00pm on 14 September 2020;

(c) the Application for costs will be determined on the papers on the basis of any documents filed unless a party requests an oral hearing not before 4:00 pm on 14 September 2020.

6. If no Application for costs is made in accordance with Order 4 then there shall be no order as to costs.

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.