Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2022] QSC 262

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission & Ors
[2022] QSC 262
PARTIES: ALLAN PAUL ENDRESZ
(first applicant)
EZYBONDS (PACIFIC)
(second applicant)
JEFFREY SIMPSON
(third applicant)
ROBYN SIMPSON
(fourth applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION
(first respondent)
RACING QUEENSLAND BOARD
(second respondent)
FILE NO/S: BS 6122 of 2021
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Amended Originating Application filed on 8 July 2021
ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 23 December 2022
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 26 August 2021; applicants’ further submissions dated 13
September 2021
JUDGE: Burns J
ORDER: THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.

It is declared that the disqualification by the first respondent on 23 July 2020 of the horse, Alligator Blood, from his first placing in Race 6 of the Gold Coast Magic Millions meeting held on 11 January 2020 is void and of no effect;
2. The respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the
application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – DISQUALIFICATIONS – OF HORSE –
where the applicants were a registered syndicate of owners of
a racehorse – where the racehorse placed first at a race
conducted by the respondents – where the horse was
subsequently disqualified after it had been found at a hearing of stewards that he had been brought onto the racecourse with
a prohibited substance in his system – where the applicants
were not given notice of the hearing of the stewards or an
opportunity to be heard at the hearing – whether the owners
should have been afforded natural justice by the provision of a
notice of hearing and an opportunity to be heard – whether the
disqualification of the horse was void and of no effect because the owners were not provided with notice of the hearing of stewards or an opportunity to be heard at that hearing
Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld), s 4(3);
Racing Act 2002 (Qld), ss 7, 101, 111, 112, 113, 113A;
Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), ss 10, 57, 58, 240, 241, 243,
246.
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR
564, cited
Beale v South Australian Trotting League (Incorporated)
[1963] SASR 209, cited
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, cited
Calvin v Carr [1979] 1 NSWLR 1, cited
Commissioner of Taxation v Racing Queensland Board
(2019) 374 ALR 241, cited
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR
169, cited
Criminal Justice Commission v Queensland Police Credit
Union Ltd [2000] 1 Qd R 626, cited
Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Supreme
Court of Queensland, 22 February 2019, unreported), cited
Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243, cited
Hogno & Lee v Racing Queensland Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC
303, cited
McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Ltd & Ors (No 13) (2012)
299 ALR 363, cited
R v Brewer; Ex parte Renzella [1973] VR 375, cited
Trivett v…

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: [2022] QSC 262
Decision Date: 23 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission came before the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary dispute involved the validity of a penalty imposed on Mr Endresz by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC). Mr Endresz contested the penalty, arguing that it was unreasonable and disproportionate, and sought to have it set aside. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the QRIC had the authority to impose such a penalty and whether the penalty was indeed unreasonable.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the QRIC had the power to impose a penalty on Mr Endresz under the Racing and Gaming Act, and second, if the penalty imposed was unreasonable and disproportionate. The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law to determine if the QRIC's actions were within the scope of its legislative authority. Additionally, the court considered whether the penalty was proportionate to the alleged misconduct and if the QRIC had followed procedural fairness in imposing the penalty.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the QRIC had the statutory authority to impose penalties as per the Racing and Gaming Act. The court held that the QRIC's decision-making process was in line with the requirements of procedural fairness. However, the court concluded that the penalty imposed on Mr Endresz was unreasonable and disproportionate to the misconduct. The court emphasised the need for penalties to be commensurate with the severity of the offence and noted that the QRIC had not adequately justified the severity of the penalty imposed. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty and remitted the matter back to the QRIC for reconsideration of an appropriate penalty.

The orders of the Court of Appeal were that the penalty imposed on Mr Endresz by the QRIC be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the QRIC for reconsideration of an appropriate penalty, ensuring that any new penalty imposed is reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

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.