Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2025] QSC 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Endresz and others v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and another [2025] QSC 93

PARTIES:
ALLAN PAUL ENDRESZ
(applicant)
AND
EZYBONDS (PACIFIC)
(second applicant)
AND
JEFFREY SIMPSON
(third applicant)
AND
ROBYN SIMPSON
(fourth applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION
(first respondent)
AND
RACING QUEENSLAND BOARD
(second respondent)

FILE NO: BS 16089 of 2024

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 8 May 2025

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 28 February 2025

JUDGE: Martin SJA

ORDER: 1. THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – DISQUALIFICATIONS – OF HORSE – where the applicants are a registered syndicate of owners of a thoroughbred racehorse – where the respondents are statutory bodies responsible for, among other things, making decisions about disciplinary matters relating to thoroughbred racing in accordance with the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) and the Australian Rules of Racing (“AR”) – where the applicants’ racehorse placed first at a race conducted by the respondents in January 2020 – where a prohibited substance was detected in a post-race urine sample taken from the horse – where the first respondent’s stewards conducted an inquiry that found that the horse had been brought onto the racecourse with a prohibited substance in its system and disqualified the horse from its placing pursuant to the AR – where the applicants successfully appealed the decision of the inquiry and obtained orders declaring the disqualification to be void and of no effect on grounds of natural justice – where the first respondent sought to conduct a second inquiry into the results of the analysis of the post-race urine sample but later discontinued that inquiry – where in December 2024 the first respondent advised the applicants of its intention to conduct a third inquiry – whether the first respondent’s stewards have already exercised the power to conduct an inquiry under the AR – whether the stewards have failed to perform relevant obligations within a reasonable time – whether the third inquiry is without jurisdiction and beyond power

Racing Integrity Act 2016, s 58

Donau Pty Ltd v ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd (2019) 101 NSWLR 679; [2019] NSWCA 185, cited
Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QSC 262, cited
McManus v Lithgow and District Workmen’s Club Ltd, unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Helsham CJ in Eq, No 1617 of 1981, 25 May 1981, considered
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18, cited
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537, cited
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Endresz; Racing Queensland Board v Endresz [2024] QCA 76, considered
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11, cited
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57, cited

COUNSEL:
K…

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 Endresz 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: [2025] QSC 93
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involves the owners of a thoroughbred racehorse who challenged the decisions made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission regarding their horse's disqualification from a race. The applicants, a syndicate of owners, contested the disqualification of their horse, which had placed first in a race held in January 2020, after a prohibited substance was detected in a post-race urine sample. The respondents are statutory bodies responsible for disciplinary matters in thoroughbred racing under the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) and the Australian Rules of Racing. The applicants had previously successfully appealed the stewards' decision that disqualified their horse and obtained orders declaring the disqualification void on grounds of natural justice. However, the first respondent later advised its intention to conduct a third inquiry into the matter, prompting the current application.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the stewards have already exercised their power to conduct an inquiry under the Australian Rules of Racing, whether they failed to perform relevant obligations within a reasonable time, and whether the proposed third inquiry is without jurisdiction and beyond power. The applicants argued that the first respondent had already exercised its power to conduct an inquiry by holding the previous two inquiries and that any further inquiry would be an abuse of process. They also contended that the respondents had failed to perform their obligations within a reasonable time.

The court concluded that the question of the reliability and usability of the urine sample could not be determined in these proceedings and was a matter for the Third Inquiry. The court found that the owners had not succeeded in their arguments. It held that the previous inquiries did not exhaust the power to conduct further inquiries, and thus the proposed third inquiry was not beyond power or without jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the respondents were not restrained from conducting the third inquiry.

The final orders of the court were that the application is dismissed. This decision allows the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission to proceed with the third inquiry into the post-race urine sample of the racehorse.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED.

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

There was evidence of expert opinion concerning the reliability of any testing conducted on one of the urine samples taken after the race. One expert said that the sample had been compromised. The question of the useability of the urine sample is a matter for the Third Inquiry. It cannot be determined in these proceedings.Conclusion The owners have not succeeded on any of the arguments they presented.Order The application is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Endresz and others v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and another [2025] QSC 93
PARTIES:	ALLAN PAUL ENDRESZ (applicant) AND EZYBONDS (PACIFIC) (second applicant) AND JEFFREY SIMPSON (third applicant) AND ROBYN SIMPSON (fourth applicant) v QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (first respondent) AND RACING QUEENSLAND BOARD (second respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 16089 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 February 2025
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDER:	1. THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED.
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – DISQUALIFICATIONS – OF HORSE – where the applicants are a registered syndicate of owners of a thoroughbred racehorse – where the respondents are statutory bodies responsible for, among other things, making decisions about disciplinary matters relating to thoroughbred racing in accordance with the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) and the Australian Rules of Racing (“AR”) – where the applicants’ racehorse placed first at a race conducted by the respondents in January 2020 – where a prohibited substance was detected in a post-race urine sample taken from the horse – where the first respondent’s stewards conducted an inquiry that found that the horse had been brought onto the racecourse with a prohibited substance in its system and disqualified the horse from its placing pursuant to the AR – where the applicants successfully appealed the decision of the inquiry and obtained orders declaring the disqualification to be void and of no effect on grounds of natural justice – where the first respondent sought to conduct a second inquiry into the results of the analysis of the post-race urine sample but later discontinued that inquiry – where in December 2024 the first respondent advised the applicants of its intention to conduct a third inquiry – whether the first respondent’s stewards have already exercised the power to conduct an inquiry under the AR – whether the stewards have failed to perform relevant obligations within a reasonable time – whether the third inquiry is without jurisdiction and beyond power Racing Integrity Act 2016, s 58 Donau Pty Ltd v ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd (2019) 101 NSWLR 679; [2019] NSWCA 185, cited Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QSC 262, cited McManus v Lithgow and District Workmen’s Club Ltd, unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Helsham CJ in Eq, No 1617 of 1981, 25 May 1981, considered Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18, cited Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537, cited Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Endresz; Racing Queensland Board v Endresz [2024] QCA 76, considered Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11, cited Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57, cited
COUNSEL:	K…