Glenn Smith v Royal NSW Canine Council Ltd

[2010] NSWSC 1134

CITATION:	Glenn Smith v Royal NSW Canine Council Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1134
HEARING DATE(S):	2 August 2010
JUDGMENT DATE :	8 October 2010
JURISDICTION:	Common Law
JUDGMENT OF:	Harrison AsJ
DECISION:	(1) The application for judicial review fails. (2) The amended statement of claim filed 26 May 2010 is dismissed (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	Judicil review - Domestic Tribunal - Dog Show in Bega - Procedure fairness - Applicability of Companion Animals Act
LEGISLATION CITED:	Companion Animals Act 1998 Supreme Court Act 1970
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564 Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1988) 19 FCR 494 Calvin v Carr [1979] 1 NSWLR 1; [1980] AC 574 Dainford Ltd v Independent Commission Against (1990) 20 ALD 207 Ex parte Jemielita (1990) 21 ALD 754 Glynn v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1990) 20 ALD 214 Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487 Hodgens v Gunn; Ex parte Hodgens [1990] 1 Qd R 1 Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81 Maloney v NSW National Coursing Association [1978] 1 NSWLR 161 People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (Pest) & Anr v State of Goa and Ors [2003] INGAHC 1 R v Gaming Board for Great Britain; Ex parte Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417 South Australia v O’Shea [1987] HCA 39; (1987) 163 CLR 378 White v Redfern (1879) 5 QBD 15
TEXTS CITED:	Judical Review of Administrative Action Thomson Reuter Australia (4th ed)
PARTIES:	Glenn Smith (Plaintiff) Royal NSW Canine Council Ltd carrying on business as Dogs NSW (First Defendant) Bega Valley Kennel and Obedience Club Inc (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2010/85270
COUNSEL:	D Knaggs (Plaintiff) M Allars (Defendants)
SOLICITORS:	Bisley Cooper Lawyers (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

FRIDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2010

2010/85270 GLENN SMITH v ROYAL NSW CANINE
COUNCIL LTD carrying on business as Dogs NSW & Anor

JUDGMENT (Judicial review – dog show in Bega)

1 HER HONOUR: This case involves the suspension of a Rottweiler dog named "Swanee" from dog shows on the basis that he was aggressive. This judgment involves the consideration of the exercise of judicial review in relation to committees that belong to self-regulated domestic bodies.

2 The plaintiff is Glenn Smith ("Mr Smith"). The first defendant is the Royal New South Wales Canine Council Ltd, trading as Dogs NSW ("Dogs NSW"). The second defendant is the Bega Valley Kennel and Obedience Club Inc (“the Club”). Mr Smith relied on his affidavits sworn 26 March 2010 and 20 July 2010. Dogs NSW relied on the affidavit of Christine Davis dated 2 July 2010.

3 This application seeks judicial review of two decisions. They are:

(i) the decision by the Club’s Show Committee ("the Bega Show Committee") on 6 February 2010, to suspend Swanee from being taken to show or trials for a period of two months (“the Club decision”); and

(ii) the decision by Dogs NSW on 14 April 2010, following a recommendation by its Show Committee ("the Dogs NSW Show Committee"), made on 16 March 2010, that Swanee be suspended for six months from the date of the incident, that a temperament test be arranged to be conducted at the completion of five months suspension and that if the dog passed the temperament test it be reinstated immediately ("the Dogs NSW decision").

4 A photograph of Swanee (Ex A) is annexed to the end of this judgment.

5 It is Mr Smith’s case that the errors that infected the Club decision were not cured by the Dogs NSW decision and hence both decisions should be set aside. He also seeks judgment for damages being expenses, loss of reputation and stress caused by the defendants’ wrongful actions.

6 Neither party has located any prior court decision dealing with the validity of committees' powers in relation to dog shows, although there is in an instructive case of Maloney v National Coursing Association [1978] 1 NSWLR 161 in relation to greyhound racing. Hence, I shall address the submissions made by the parties in some detail.

7 These proceedings were commenced by statement of claim and followed on with an amended statement of claim, defence and reply. This is an unusual approach. In substance Mr Smith seeks:

1. A declaration that the because the Companion Animals Act 1998 applies, the Regulations and Guidelines made by Dogs NSW are ultra vires;
2. Declarations that Mr Smith was denied natural justice and a fair hearing by both the Club and Dogs NSW;
3. Declarations that the decisions are incurably defective because the complaint was misdescribed;
4. Declarations that the Club decision and the Dogs NSW decision were vitiated by real or apprehended bias; and
5. Orders that the Club decision and the Dogs NSW decision be set aside.

8 I will set out firstly what occurred on the day of the Bega Dog Show, secondly the Club decision and thirdly the Dogs NSW decision. Then I will address the nature of judicial review for domestic bodies, the ultra vires ground, Mr Smith’s complaint that he was not afforded a fair hearing (points 2 and 3 above) and finally, Mr Smith’s claim of bias (point 4 above). I will deal with the ultra vires ground first. I will then discuss Mr Smith’s complaint that he was not afforded a fair hearing (points 2 and 3 above). Finally, Mr Smith’s claim of bias (point 4 above) will be addressed.

Background facts

9 Mr Smith is the owner of the Rottweiler dog registered as CH Gelderland Fast N Furious. The dog's pet name is Swanee and he is about 29 months old.

10 Mr Smith and his wife Margaret have had a long involvement with dogs. Mr Smith acquired his first Rottweiler in 1988 and has been involved with that breed continuously for the last 22 years. Since he commenced showing Rottweilers, he has achieved Grand Championship status with one male and two female dogs. Swanee is currently the Smiths’ only show dog. It is Mr Smith's opinion that Swanee was well on track to gaining his Grand Championship status. Up until 6 February 2010 the Smiths had exhibited Swanee at dog shows on the majority of weekends. They enjoy this hobby immensely.

11 On 4 February 2010, Swanee began experiencing very bad diarrhoea. Mr Smith administered Imodium tablets to him. Unsurprisingly, Swanee did not appreciate this.

The Club decision 6 February 2010

12 On the weekend commencing 5 February 2010, the Club was conducting three dog shows under a panel of three judges. Swanee was entered in an All Breeds Championship Show held on 6 February 2010. This show was judged by Ms Yanina Smith (no relation to Mr Smith).

13 Swanee had been given an Imodium tablet on the morning of 6 February 2010 and another about 30 minutes before he entered the ring. At about 10.15 am Mr Smith presented Swanee for examination by the judge. The judge, Ms Yanina Smith, asked about Swanee's age and examined his dentition. It is from this stage onwards that accounts of what then took place diverge.

14 Mr Smith contended that Swanee merely jerked his head to the left and out of Mr Smith’s clasp, and that any contact between Swanee and the judge was purely accidental and not a show of aggression. In his statement dated 6 February 2010 Mr Smith stated:

"The judge wished to examine [Swanee's] head with his mouth closed – he was panting and had his mouth open – I commented to the judge about him 'smiling'. In order for the judge to examine his head without him panting – I forced the dogs mouth closed and held his muzzle whilst she touched the side of his head. He objected to being touched whilst I was forcing his mouth closed. I believe I put him on the defensive. In his defence, for the last two days he had been experiencing very bad diarrhoea – I have been forcing Imodium tablets down his throat to which he has been objecting – he had been given a tablet earlier in the day and another tablet shoved down his throat about 30 minutes before entering the ring – he has been objecting to me opening his mouth, forcing the tablet down his throat and then holding his mouth closed until he swallowed the medication .

The dog has been well socialised, shown extensively (463 ch points) & never shown any aggression towards any person or other dog. This situation was caused by me forcing the dogs mouth closed & putting him in a defensive position. …". (emphasis in original)

15 Mrs Smith (statement 6/2/10) explained that she was ringside watching her husband show Swanee. She saw Ms Yanina Smith examining Swanee before moving away and talking to Mr Smith. Mr Smith told her (Mrs Smith) what had happened as soon as he left the ring. She stated that she did not see the dog show any aggression while he was being examined. It was her view that Swanee was his usual playful self when he left the ring.

16 Ms Yanina Smith provided a statement immediately after the incident occurred in which she said:

"I was judging Intermediate dog class and approached the male Rottweiler. I asked the age to which the exhibitor replied. I mouthed the dog whilst he was panting and I asked the exhibitor to close his [the dog’s] mouth which he [Mr Smith] did. I finished examining the head and moved to the side to finish examining him and he turned his head and without warning bit me which connected with my right arm. There was no blood or marks left on my arm. I sent the dog from the ring.

The exhibitor seemed shocked that he [the dog] had bitten me. The attack was unprovoked and at no stage whilst approaching the dog did it show any aggression toward me and I had felt comfortable examining the dog."

17 Ms Kathleen Ayton, an exhibitor and judge, remarked in her statement dated 6 February 2010:

"Following the incident with Mr G Smith’s dog I approached him & asked if he would like me to examine his dog.

The dog displayed a very open & friendly temperament. I did a full mouth exam & the (sic) initiated play even pushing the dog with body contact. At all times his temperament remained open & friendly.

I believe this incident was due to the owner putting the dog
into a defensive attitude."

18 Mr Jim Mackendar was the ring steward on the day. He reported (undated statement):

"Ex. No. 399 was be (sic) examined when The Judge had check (sic) mouth & started down the body. The turn it head took her hand n arm (sic). The Judge ask him to leave the ring (sic)."

19 An Inquiry of the Bega Show Committee was convened at about 10.20 am on 6 February 2010. The written report of the Inquiry (“Ms Hine’s report”) reads as follows:

"Present: Rhonda Ralphs, Jim Mackendar,
Sian Hine, G Smith (Glen)

It was explained to Mr Smith that an Aggressive Dog Incident Report would be submitted to Dogs NSW in response to the incident that occurred in the breed show ring involving his dog and judge, Ms Yanina Smith.

Reports were obtained from the judge, steward, dog owner/exhibitor, witness and then later wife of exhibitor.

Mr Smith was allowed to read all reports, and the report form was explained to him and signed.

The exhibitor, Mr Smith, was asked to remove the dog from the show grounds and was advised that he would hear from Dogs NSW [as] to when the dog could be again exhibited. Show regulations were sighted.

Mr Smith had left the club house without being handed his copy of the Dogs NSW Aggressive Dog Incident Report, while another witness was writing a report.

Club president Mrs Nicholls located Mr Smith and he was handed his copy of the incident report on 6.2.10.

Sian Hine BVK&O Club Inc."

20 The effect of the determination was that Mr Smith was asked to remove Swanee from the showground (which he did) and was informed that he would hear from Dogs NSW. An Aggressive Dog Incident Report was prepared and signed by Ms Hine and by Mr Smith. Statements were obtained from Ms Yanina Smith, Mr Mackendar, Ms Ayton and Mr and Mrs Smith.

The Dogs NSW decision 14 April 2010

21 On 11 February 2010, the Aggressive Dog Incident Report (with enclosures) was provided to Dogs NSW. The following day, Dogs NSW formally advised Mr Smith that Swanee had been declared aggressive. Mr Smith sent numerous emails and letters to Dogs NSW over the following weeks. Mr Smith was invited to and did make submissions to Dogs NSW.

22 On 16 February a Dogs NSW Show Committee meeting was convened. On 10 March the Dogs NSW board of directors met to consider the Aggressive Dog Incident Report. The Dogs NSW Show Committee met again on 16 March. On 14 April the Dogs NSW board of directors held a second meeting to consider the recommendations of the Dogs NSW Show Committee. Item 6.6 of the minutes of the board meeting is headed "Aggressive Dog Matters". It reads:

"6.6 Aggressive Dog Matters

MOVED T Couchman SECONDED C Mann

THAT the Aggressive Dogs matter from the Show Committee's March meeting be brought forward and discussed in camera.
CARRIED


6.6.1 Recommendation 4.1 – Item 3.2: Ch Gelderland Fast N Furious (6100055960)

MOVED T Couchman SECONDED R Britten

THAT the Show Committee's recommendation in relation to Rottweiler male, Ch Gelderland Fast N Furious (6100055960), which reads as follows, be approved:-

(a) The dog be suspended for 6 months from the date of the incident, ie, 6/2/10;

(b) That a temperament test be arranged to be conducted at the completion of 5 months of the suspension; and

(c) If the dog passes the temperament test, it be reinstated, administratively, immediately.

CARRIED


Moved E Gunter SECONDED R Britten

THAT the temperament test for Ch Gelderland Fast N Furious (6100055960) include drug testing.

CARRIED "

23 On 20 April 2010 the Dogs NSW decision was communicated to Mr Smith’s legal representatives.

The availability of judicial review

24 The plaintiff relies upon s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) which reads, relevantly:

"(3) It is declared that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant any relief or remedy in the nature of a writ of certiorari includes jurisdiction to quash the ultimate determination of a court or tribunal in any proceedings if that determination has been made on the basis of an error of law that appears on the face of the record of the proceedings.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the face of the record includes the reasons expressed by the court or tribunal for its ultimate determination.

(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not affect the operation of any legislative provision to the extent to which the provision is, according to common law principles and disregarding those subsections, effective to prevent the Court from exercising its powers to quash or otherwise review a decision."

25 Section 75 of the Supreme Court Act reads:

"75 Declaratory relief

No proceedings shall be open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby and the Court may make binding declarations of right whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed or not."

26 The defendants accept that Mr Smith can apply for declaratory relief under s 75 of the Supreme Court Act in relation to the Dogs NSW decision. Dogs NSW is a domestic tribunal established by private contract. It operates through a governing body with a constitution and articles.

27 The defendants submitted that judicial review is not available in relation to the Club decision. I agree. Section 69(3) of the Supreme Court Act refers to “the ultimate determination of a court or tribunal”. Unlike the Dogs NSW decision, the Club decision cannot be considered an ultimate decision. However, In the event that I am wrong, I will consider whether either or both decisions should be set aside.

The Dogs NSW Regulations and Guidelines

28 In order to ascertain whether this Court has power to intervene in the Dogs NSW decision, it is necessary to examine the constitution and operation of Dogs NSW.

29 Dogs NSW is a company duly incorporated by law. Its principal objects and powers would be as set out in the Memorandum of Association (a copy of which is not before this Court). Under the Articles of Association, its affairs are conducted by a Committee. Committee members are elected at an annual general meeting of the company.

30 The Dogs NSW Regulations provide for dog owners to become members of Dogs NSW on application (Article 3). Members have a number of privileges, two of which are relevant in the present case. Firstly, they have the right to register dogs bred or purchased by them; secondly, once the dog is registered, they have the right to compete for any prize available for competition (Article 11). Members are required to strictly observe and act in conformity with and not otherwise than in accordance with the Articles and Regulations of Dogs NSW (Article 18).

31 The Regulations made by Dogs NSW are not made pursuant to statute. They are rules or regulations made by Dogs NSW as a domestic body, which has the functions of regulating the exhibition of dogs at shows. Article 87 provides:

"87 Regulations

The Board of Directors may from time to time make regulations and may from time to time amend the regulations whether by deletion, addition or otherwise as it may think fit. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board of Directors may make regulations:

(a) regulating the maintenance and administration of the register;

(b) for granting permission for and for regulating the holding and conducting of exhibitions;

(c) regulating qualifications and appointment of judges, stewards and other officials;

(d) regulating the granting of awards, prizes and certificates;

…

(l) providing for a code of ethics relating to responsible dog ownership, including the conduct of members and the keeping, welfare, breeding, selling and disposing of dogs by members;

(m) providing for the conduct of inquiries, investigations, hearings and appeals concerning such matters as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine and for the imposition, waiver or suspension of penalties;

(n) for any purpose connected with the objects of
RNSWCC".

32 Article 22 provides that the Board may, in accordance with the regulations:

(a) conduct or cause to be conducted all such inquiries and investigations as it considers appropriate in relation to:


(i) any alleged misconduct or breach of the Articles of Regulations by a member;

(ii) any matter of thing referred to the Board of Directors by a member;

(iii) any decision, act or omission of an affiliate or its Show Committee and any occurrence at an exhibition and the rejection of any entry of any exhibit in a Show, OTHER THAN a decision, act or omission that is of a domestic nature relation only to the internal affairs of an affiliate or its members and not relating to the objects of RNSWCC or to the Articles or regulations;

(iv) without prejudice to paragraph (iii), any breach of or failure to comply by an affiliate or its officers with the constitution, rules or regulations of the relevant affiliate;

(v) any other matter or thing as the Board of Directors may from time to time decide;

(b) impose such penalty (whether by way of reprimand, fine, disqualification, suspension [including interim suspension] or termination of membership or other mandatory requirement) as it in the circumstances of the case considers appropriate".

33 Dogs NSW has specific dog show regulations governing the declaration of a dog as “aggressive” (“the Regulations”). The Regulations read, relevantly:

“ Part II - SHOW
14.10 (a) It is the obligation of each owner, exhibitor and handler at a show to take all such steps as may be necessary to ensure that any dog under that person’s care or control or for which that person is responsible does not behave in an aggressive manner.

(b) It is the obligation of any person at a show who observes a dog behaving in an aggressive manner to report the incident either orally or in writing to a member of the Show Committee as soon as possible after the incident.
(c) Upon receipt of a report of an incident involving aggressive behaviour by a dog, the Show Committee shall meet as soon as practicable on that day to consider the matter.
(d) If the Show Committee is satisfied that the incident comprised or included the dog attacking, or attempting to attack, any person at the show, the Show Committee may declare the dog to be an aggressive dog, provided the Committee conducting the investigation believes that no justified provocation occurred then it should report the dog aggressive if it is satisfied the attack occurred. …

…

(f) The Show Committee shall advise in writing, on the day , the person who appears to be responsible for the care and control of an aggressive dog of its declaration as such.
(g) Forthwith upon the Show Committee declaring a dog to be an aggressive dog:
(i) the owner, exhibitor or handler responsible for the dog shall forthwith remove the dog from the showground;
(ii) the dog shall ipso facto be disqualified from further exhibition at the show in question or at any other show. During the period of such disqualification the dog shall not be allowed to enter or remain upon any showground.
(h) In the event that the Show Committee declares a dog to be an aggressive dog, then no later than within the next 5 working days after the incident the affiliate shall provide the Manager with a written report of the incident and the Show Committee’s decision and shall include with that report a copy of all statements in writing concerning the incident, the Minutes of the Show Committee Meeting, the advice referred to in (f) above, relevant catalogue pages and any other relevant documents.
(i) Within 2 calendar months of receipt of the report referred to in (h) the Board of Directors shall consider the report and if satisfied that the dog is likely to constitute a danger to persons, other dogs or property at any show, may suspend or disqualify or otherwise debar that dog from being an exhibit, or may impose such conditions in relation to the exhibition of that dog, and in either event for such period as the Board of Directors considers appropriate.
…
(m) For the purpose of this Regulation 14.10, ‘show’ includes any trial, parade, picnic day, event or other activity in which a member participates with a registered dog. …
…
PART XII INTERPRETATION
“ Show Committee ” means the person responsible for the organisation and running of the Show in question but for the purpose of Regulations Part II Show Section 14 only shall mean the President of the Affiliate concerned and the Show Manager and the Show Secretary appointed by the Affiliate or the Committee of the Affiliate in respect of the show concerned. For the purpose of Regulations Part II Section 14 a meeting of the Show Committee comprising the President, the Show Manager and the Show Secretary shall require all three such persons thereof to be present in person. However, if the same person represents two of these positions as aforesaid than an additional person shall be appointed by the Affiliate for the purpose of this Regulation.
…
If any member of the Show Committee is interested in any way, personally, or through family, or ownership of animals involved, in any matter before the Show Committee, that member must stand down and be replaced by a different person from the Affiliate or Agricultural Association, as appropriate. …”

34 Dogs NSW has also published “Guidelines for Show Committees When Dealing with Aggressive Dogs” (“the Guidelines”). The Guidelines read, relevantly:

“If an incident occurs at a show the Regulations require your Show Committee to, immediately it is reported, conduct an investigation. The Show Committee must be of at least three people and include at least the President, the Show Secretary and the Show Manager if one exists (and it should) must also attend. NOTE it is a minimum of three people.

The Chairman shall initiate the investigation with the following statement:
“This investigation is to examine an alleged incident that the dog “……” acted aggressively in that it ………… Should the incident be proved then the dog “……” shall be declared “Aggressive” which will mean that the dog shall be removed from the Showground immediately, and must not be exhibited again until the matter is dealt with by Dogs NSW. If no advice is received from Dogs NSW within 2 months, then the owner may make application to Dogs NSW to have the suspension removed.
The Chairman shall introduce all parties at the investigation and in particular the members of the Show Committee.
The Chairman should seek a written statement concerning the incident from the complainant before starting the investigation. The statement must be made available to the owners and/or handlers of the dog so they may prepare a defence and question the statement during the investigation. The owner and/or handler of the dog should be advised to make a written statement and this statement must be made available to the complainant.
…The owner or person responsible for the dog must be in attendance at all times and must be allowed to question witnesses, make statements, and generally defend the dog. He/she may be excused whole the Show Committee deliberates its decision. The Show Committee must take into account any provocation which occurred. …
Once the Show Committee has heard all the available evidence it must make a judgement as to whether the dog was aggressive or not, if not all parties must be advised of the reason for the decision and a report submitted to Dogs NSW.
If it is decided that the dog is to be declared aggressive, the Aggressive Dog Declaration form must be completed and a copy of this, along with all documentation, and Minutes of the Inquiry must be sent to Dogs NSW within five days. The owner of the dog must be advised then and there, it is not adequate to write to them later. … (emphasis in original)

Ground 1: Ultra vires

35 Mr Smith contended that the procedure for determining whether a dog is aggressive is set out in the Companion Animals Act 1998 and that the defendants’ own procedures for making this determination under the Regulations are ultra vires that Act. The ramifications that occur when a dog is declared dangerous under this Act are far more serious than when a dog is declared aggressive by Dogs NSW. They can lead to an order that the dog being destroyed. It is necessary to determine whether the Companion Animals Act is applicable.

36 The Companion Animals Act is described as an Act to provide for the identification and registration of companion animals and for the duties and responsibilities of their owners. Its principal object is to provide for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals (s 3A). The Act deals with the registration of companion animals, control of dogs in public places and declaration of dangerous dogs. It should be noted that, while a show dog falls into the definition of ‘companion animal’ under the Act, the Act does not made specific reference to the exhibition of dogs at dog shows, with the exception of sections 13(5)(c), 13(5)(d) and 15(1)(b).

37 Part 5 of the Act (ss 33 to 42) sets out the procedure to be followed by councils in relation to dangerous dogs. An authorised officer of a council, if satisfied that the dog is dangerous, can declare the dog to be dangerous (s 34(1)) after giving notice to the owner (s 35).

38 Section 33(1) of the Act states that a dog is “dangerous” if it:

“(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(c) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin) …"

39 Section 36 sets out the obligations of a dog owner whose dog has been declared dangerous. These include measures to muzzle, secure and confine the dog. An owner who fails to discharge these obligations may have his or her dog seized. The Local Court also has powers pursuant to ss 44 and 45 to declare that a dog is dangerous and having made that declaration a court has power under ss 47 and 48 to make control and destruction orders. Section 93 provides the Supreme Court with summary jurisdiction to deal with proceedings for an offence under the Act. There is a similar procedure in India, such as that set out in s 191-BA of the Goa Municipalities Act. For further discussion of the procedure in India, see People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (Pest) & Anr v State of Goa and Ors [2003] INGAHC 1.

40 Section 96 confers power on the Governor to make regulations in relation to (inter alia) fees for registration certificates, the number of “restricted” dogs a person may own, and the training and accreditation of assistance animals. The scope of the regulation-making power does not envisage the making of regulations in relation to the exhibition of dogs at dog shows. I accept that there are provisions in the Companion Animals Act that define what constitutes a dangerous dog and put in place a procedure by which dogs can be declared dangerous. But this procedure is not intended to regulate the behaviour of dogs and their owners at dog shows. It is my view that there is no inconsistency between the Companion Animals Act and the Dogs NSW Regulations. Accordingly, this ground of review fails.

Ground 2: Procedural Fairness

41 Mr Smith submitted that the decision of each defendant was arrived at in breach of the ‘fair hearing’ rule.

42 Aronson, Dyer and Groves state (Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4^th ed) Thomson Reuters Australia at 403:

“In broad terms [the rules of natural justice] require that persons be afforded a fair and unbiased hearing before decisions are taken which affect them.”

43 In Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 the High Court held that the duty to accord natural justice is a duty to act fairly. This normally involves a duty to apprise the affected person of the nature of the charge and of the date and time fixed for hearing so that the person is given a reasonable opportunity to meet that case and to advance his or her own. Brennan J (as he then was) stated (at 628):

"A person whose interests are likely to be affected by an exercise of power must be given an opportunity to deal with relevant matters adverse to his interest which the repository of the power proposes to take into account in deciding upon its exercise."

44 Mason J (as he then was) stated in Kioa that the law had now developed to a point where it may be accepted that there is a common law duty to act fairly, in the sense of according procedural fairness, in the making of administrative decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention. Procedural fairness as a notion is a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures, which are appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of the particular case (584-585).

45 I accept that the Dogs NSW decision affects Swanee’s chance of becoming Grand Champion and that Mr Smith would be entitled to prize money if Swanee had won any of the dog shows in which, owing to his suspension, he could not compete.

46 Mr Smith submitted that the Club failed to observe the Regulations and Guidelines in that the "rules for fair hearing" were not observed during the Bega Show Committee Inquiry. Mr Smith contended that during the Inquiry "no Chairperson was identified or identifiable" and that the "Club President was not present", that there was "no opening announcement made" and that "no members of the Show Committee were introduced" to him. Mr Smith submitted that:

"The statement from the complainant was only made available to me to read after the Show committee had made its decision. Therefore it was not available to me, as required, to enable me to ‘prepare a defence and question the statement during any investigation’…

I was not given the opportunity to prepare any defence…

I was not give the opportunity to provide verbal or written evidence before the Show Committee made its decision…

I was not given the opportunity to provide verbal or written witness statements for consideration, nor question any witnesses…

I was not advised to make a written statement that could be made available to the complainant…

No copy of the complainant's statement was provided to me at the time".

47 These statements are at odds with the following remarks contained in Ms Hine’s report:

“It was explained to Mr Smith that an Aggressive Dog Incident Report would be submitted to Dogs NSW in response to the incident that occurred in the breed show ring involving his dog and judge, Ms Yanina Smith.

Reports were obtained from the judge, steward, dog owner/exhibitor, witness and then later wife of exhibitor.

Mr Smith was allowed to read all reports, and the report form was explained to him and signed.”

48 Mr Smith submitted that the most fundamental breaches of process were firstly, the wrong composition of the Committee; secondly, its failure to serve him with the complainant’s (Ms Yanina Smith’s) statement prior to the commencement of the hearing, and the consequent denial of the chance to question her, to receive witness statements and to generally defend and otherwise prepare his case; and finally, a purported finding that the dog “grabbed” Ms Yanina Smith when that description was not within the wording of the charge, being Ms Yanina Smith’s statement.

49 In Maloney v NSW National Coursing Association at 171 Glass JA (with whom Hope and Hutley JJA agreed) considered that the requirements of natural justice were somewhat different where domestic tribunals were concerned. His Honour elaborated on the reasons why this was so.

“ In the administration of justice by courts proper, and those acting in a similar capacity, public policy requires that there should be no doubt about the purity of that administration: Allinson v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration , per Lord Esher M.R. The rules being enforced have no consensual basis. The parties have not chosen the tribunal. The judges and those being judged are drawn from two groups of people so numerous and so placed in relation to each other that it is not only desirable, but also eminently feasible, to insist that the former should be purged of all bias towards the latter, whether real or apprehended. Domestic tribunals are usually established in circumstances which are radically different. The members, generally speaking, have agreed to abide by a set of rules and the authority of a committee to enforce them, if necessary by expulsion. The committee members cannot, in the nature of things, divest themselves of the manifold predilections and prejudices resulting from past associations with members. Apprehension of bias could be generated in all kinds of ways. If it was a disqualifying consideration, the enforcement of the consensual rules would be largely unworkable. There may be some circumstances where a suspicion of bias would operate to disqualify a member of a domestic tribunal. But generally speaking it does not so operate and, in particular, it cannot operate with respect to tribunals such as that set up by Art. 10 in the articles of the defendant association …
… A domestic tribunal obliged by the general law to observe the minimum requirements of justice must give notice of the charge being preferred, extend an adequate opportunity to present a defence and concede all the other incidental safeguards of a fair trial which are covered by the audi alteram partem principle. Nothing less than a clear dispensation in the rules could exclude these requirements. Similarly with respect to the disqualification attaching to a party who is in the position of a litigant qua the party charged, as Mr. Bell was, or whose mind is imbued with actual bias with respect to the issues to be judged or the member to be tried. But for reasons already given I am of opinion that suspected bias on the part of a member of a domestic tribunal such as the committee of the defendant association does not disqualify him, even if there be no rule which expressly, or by implication, so provides.” (footnotes omitted)

50 The defendants accept that there is an implied duty to accord procedural fairness in the present case. The question is whether the content of that duty is reduced and if so, to what extent. The defendants submitted, and I accept, that the content of the duty was affected by, firstly, the urgency of the case, secondly, the fact that the matter was an Inquiry rather than inter partes litigation, and finally, the fact that the Club decision fell within the broader decision-making process culminating in the Dogs NSW decision.

51 It is plain that circumstances of urgency may mitigate the requirements of procedural fairness in a particular case (see, eg, White v Redfern (1879) 5 QBD 15; Hodgens v Gunn; Ex parte Hodgens [1990] 1 Qd R 1).

52 It was Mr Smith’s argument that as Swanee had been safely confined to the Smiths’ van after the incident, there was no urgency such as to justify any departure from the normal rules of procedural fairness.

53 However, the Regulations reflect the urgency of circumstances in which a dog is or may be declared aggressive. They require much to occur immediately after the incident has occurred. As Ms Yanina Smith formed the view that Swanee bit her, she was obliged under Clause 14.10(b) to report the incident to the Bega Show Committee as soon as possible after the incident. Upon receipt of the incident report, the Bega Show Committee was required to meet as soon as practicable on that day to consider the matter.

54 I am of the view, notwithstanding Swanee’s confinement after the incident, that there was a considerable degree of urgency to the situation which would have reduced the requirements of procedural fairness in the Bega Show Committee’s decision-making process. If the Bega Show Committee was not aware that Swanee had been confined, the urgency would have been more acute.

The decision-making scheme

55 The content of the hearing to be afforded by a preliminary decision-maker may be reduced on the basis that the preliminary decision operates only temporarily, pending the conduct of a hearing that may result in a decision with longer term operation (Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487 at 513-6; Ex parte Jemielita (1990) 21 ALD 754).

56 Accordingly, where an impugned decision forms one step in a wider administrative process, the entire process should be considered in its entirety in order to determine whether procedural fairness has been afforded (South Australia v O’Shea [1987] HCA 39; (1987) 163 CLR 378 at 389; Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 578). In the present case, it is important to consider the requirements of procedural fairness within the complete context that includes both the Club decision and the Dogs NSW decision. As Aronson, Dyer and Groves note (p 489):

“…in some cases at least, a preliminary decision may be considered to form part of a broader decision-making process, so that the provision of a hearing in the latter stages can be treated as satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness, or at least as reducing the content of those requirements at the preliminary stage. The general principle, we suggest, is that this should be permitted only to the extent that any significant adverse effects of the preliminary decision upon a person’s interests can be substantially reversed or redressed at a later stage.” (footnotes omitted).

57 In the present case, where a person reports that a dog is behaving in an aggressive manner at a dog show, the Regulations give the Show Committee a limited, preliminary function. It is to consider the incident, report and decide whether the dog is aggressive and advise the owner of any such declaration. The Show Committee has five days to send a written report of its decision under clause 14.10(h) to Dogs NSW. The board of directors of Dogs NSW is required to consider the report within two months of its receipt and determine whether to take any of the courses of action set out in clause 14.10(i). If it fails to finally deal with the matter within two months, pursuant to clause 14.10(j) the dog owner may apply for removal of the disqualification and Dogs NSW is to forthwith grant the application or reach a decision within one month, failing which the application for removal of the disqualification is deemed to have been granted. Accordingly, the final exercise of power, which potentially affects the interests of the owner or person responsible for the dog, rests with Dogs NSW.

58 I accept the defendants’ submission that the decision-making process under clause 14.10 of the Regulations envisages that a declaration made by the Club will operate only as a short-term measure. Normally with a period of two months it is replaced by a decision of Dogs NSW. In the event of delay by Dogs NSW, the declaration may only continue for one further month provided the affected person makes an application. Crucially, the period between a declaration by the Bega Show Committee and an exercise of power by Dogs NSW allows time for a fuller hearing to be given by Dogs NSW.

Notice of the charge

59 The incident that gave rise to the Club's decision is described in Ms Yanina Smith’s statement, in which the complainant stated that when she walked to the side of the plaintiff's dog to finish examining him, the dog “without warning bit [her].”

60 The Dogs NSW Aggressive Dog Incident Report, which was signed by Ms Hine and Mr Smith, described the incident as follows:

"After being examined, when the judge moved to the dog's side the dog turned its head and grabbed the judge."

61 The Club provided both the Incident Report and the Bega Show Committee’s decision of 6 February 2010 (with annexed written statements) to Dogs NSW. One of the annexed statements, by Mr Mackendar who witnessed the incident, stated: "The (sic) turn it head took her hand n arm."

62 Mr Smith submitted that the variance in the manner in which the incident was described left him “unaware of the precise charge he had to meet… a precision which the fair hearing rule demands.”

63 In my view, however, there can be no doubt that the complaint was that Mr Smith’s dog without warning "bit" the judge, an action which is also conveyed by the word "grabbed". Realistically, the only way in which a dog can grab a person whilst in a standing posture is by biting the person. I am not satisfied that Mr Smith was at any stage misled as to the nature of the complaint.

64 In most cases, procedural fairness requires that before a decision is made, notice be given to the person whose interests may be adversely affected by the decision. The notice should state the nature of the charge. However whether this requirement applies, and the extent of the requirement to give particulars of the charge, are reduced where a power is to be exercised urgently.

65 The defendants submitted that the extent of the requirement to give particulars of a charge is reduced in the case of an investigative tribunal where considerations of confidentiality and efficient conduct of the investigation apply (R v Gaming Board for Great Britain; Ex parte Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417; Glynn v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1990) 20 ALD 214; Dainford Ltd v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1990) 20 ALD 207). It is sufficient if the tribunal advises the person affected of the general nature of the matters to which they should direct their attention. Insistence upon particulars of the charge is impractical and potentially embarrassing to the proper conduct of the inquiry, which is not inter partes litigation, and which must be capable of following the evidence wherever it leads (Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1988) 19 FCR 494 at 540-9; Glynn v Independent Commission Against Corruption). The person affected by the decision should understand the nature of the inquiry and the matters being investigated so that he or she may make submissions and present evidence directed at any potential adverse findings.

66 Plainly enough, in circumstances where there is an apparently aggressive dog present at an event at which there are other attendees and other dogs, there is an urgent need for appropriate action to be taken by the designated authority.

67 The Regulations, although not expressly providing for notice to be given to the person responsible for the dog before it makes its report, do provide for the report to be given to the owner once it is prepared. In some circumstances procedural fairness may demand that notice be given ahead of time and for practical purposes it is likely that in most cases this will occur.

68 In the present case Mr Smith was given notice that the Bega Show Committee was meeting to consider a report that his dog was aggressive. In his own account of events, dated 9 February 2010, he states that after the incident, he was approached by Mr Mackendar and informed that Ms Yanina Smith had reported the incident and that he was invited to attend the Inquiry (which he did). Contrary to paragraph 7 of Mr Smith’s submissions dated 27 July 2010, I am satisfied that Mr Smith was aware of the charge he had to meet.

69 The duty to accord procedural fairness did not require the Bega Show Committee to give precise particulars of the charge. It was for the Bega Show Committee to ascertain the facts on the basis of the accounts presented to it, and if satisfied that the incident included the dog attacking or attempting to attack a person, make a declaration under clause 14.10(d).

Opportunity to be heard

70 Mr Smith submits that he was not given an appropriate opportunity to put forward his version of events prior to the Club making its decision. This is contrary to the evidence of Ms Pam Seabrook, who stated in her report of 6 February 2010 that Mr Smith was given an opportunity to provide his explanation for the incident.

71 Ms Ralphs, in a letter sent to Dogs NSW on 10 March 2010, remarked as follows:

“…Verbally Yanina Smith told us her version of what happened as did the witness Jim Mackendar whose evidence supported Ms. Smith’s story & then the owner of the dog Mr. Smith spoke, he was quite upset.
The problem was then discussed & we decided the dog was going to be declared aggressive. Mr. Smith was informed of the decision verbally. Everyone who had to write a report then sat down in the Secretarys Room & completed their individual reports.
After completing his report Mr Smith asked us if he could have his wife write a report which we agreed to. He then left the room to go & get her, returning with her she subsequently wrote her report.
All written reports were then given to the Secretary for her to send to Dogs NSW.”

72 The Regulations are silent as to the conduct of the Inquiry. However, the Guidelines deal at some length with the nature of the evidence to be received at an Inquiry:

“The Chairman should seek a written statement concerning the incident from the complainant before starting the investigation: The statement must be made available to the owners and/or handlers of the dog so they may prepare a defence and question the statement during the investigation. The owner and/or handler of the dog should be advised to make a written statement and this statement must be made available to the complainant.
The inquiry must look at all evidence relating to the incident but only to that incident, comments like ‘he’s been having a go at everything all weekend’ or ‘he’s always like that’ are not relevant, and must not be allowed. The person making the report must give evidence as should all witnesses, preferably in writing. The owner or person responsible for the dog must be in attendance at all times and must be allowed to question witnesses, make statements, and generally defend his dog. He/she may be excused while the Show Committee deliberates its decision. …
Once the Show Committee has heard all the available evidence it must make a judgment as to whether the dog was aggressive or not, if not all parties must be advised of the reason for the decision and a report submitted to Dogs NSW.”

73 The eyewitnesses to the incident included Ms Yanina Smith, Mr Mackendar, Mr Smith and his wife. Ms Hine’s report states that:

“Reports were obtained from the judge, steward, dog owner/exhibitor, witness and then later wife of exhibitor.

Mr Smith was allowed to read all reports, and the report form was explained to him and signed.”

74 Mr Smith submitted that he was not given the opportunity to read and respond to the witness statements before or during the Inquiry. This was because, at the time of the Inquiry, only Ms Yanina Smith had prepared a statement. Mr Smith said he first saw her statement after the Inquiry had concluded. He then prepared his own statement and obtained supporting statements from his wife and from Ms Ayton.

75 Mr Smith deposed (Aff 2/8/10 at [3]) that he was unaware of any statement made by Ms Hine until 6 July 2010. However, Ms Hine’s report was not a witness statement but a record of the Inquiry proceedings. A copy of Ms Hine’s report was sent to Mr Smith on 8 February 2010. More important is Mr Smith’s contention that he did not see the statement of Mr Mackendar until 15 February 2010 when he received copies of all of the statements. Of course, the Club was not required to receive all evidence in documentary form; that is merely a preference expressed by the Guidelines. Accordingly, I make no comment in relation to the evidence of Mr Mackendar beyond observing that his statement does not appear to have been prepared in time for the Inquiry.

76 I am satisfied that proper procedures were not followed at the Inquiry. In particular, the decision to suspend Swanee appears to have been reached before witness statements were prepared. This conclusion is supported by Ms Hine’s statement (“Mr Smith had left the club house…while another witness was writing a report”) and by the following observations of Ms Ralphs (letter to Dogs NSW, 10/3/10):

“The problem was then discussed & we decided the dog was going to be declared aggressive. Mr. Smith was informed of the decision verbally. Everyone who had to write a report then sat down in the Secretarys Room & completed their individual reports.

After completing his report Mr Smith asked us if he could have his wife write a report which we agreed to. He then left the room to go and get her, returning with her she subsequently wrote the report.”

77 Having carefully considered the relevant evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Smith was not given the chance to read the complainant’s statement until after the Inquiry had concluded. This is contrary to the Guidelines. Those Guidelines, which may not have bound the Club to the same extent as the Regulations, nonetheless provide an indication of the standards of procedural fairness which Mr Smith could reasonably have expected, even where the content of the duty to provide procedural fairness is reduced. At the very least, the Club should have ensured that Ms Yanina Smith’s written statement was provided to Mr Smith before the Inquiry. That would have given Mr Smith the opportunity to properly question her account at the Inquiry.

Composition of the Bega Show Committee

78 Clause 14.10 of the Regulations requires the Show Committee to be comprised of the President, Show Manager and Show Secretary, all three of whom must be present. Where the same person holds two of these positions, an “additional person” must be appointed. This latter provision is not part of the Guidelines.

79 There are varying accounts of who comprised the Inquiry on the morning of 6 February 2010. Ms Hine’s report records that, apart from herself (Treasurer and Show Secretary on the day), the attendees were Mr Smith, Ms Ralphs (Chief Steward) and Mr Mackendar (Steward). Ms Ralphs stated on 10 March 2010 that the members of the “Club’s Show Committee” were herself (Chief Steward), Ms Linda Quinto (Club President) and Ms Hine (Acting Secretary). Ms Ralphs remarked that Ms Yanina Smith (the complainant), Mr Mackendar and Mr Smith were also present at the Inquiry.

80 Mr Smith stated that “[n]o parties or members of the Show Committee (if present) were introduced. In his document entitled “Legal & Administrative Issues” dated 11 February 2010, he stated:

“As well as the judge and the aforementioned ring steward, two women were present. I assume they were members of the ‘inquiry’. I do not know their names nor do I know their roles in the ‘inquiry’. There were no formalities whatsoever - no introductions so I have no idea who was the chairperson…”

81 In an email dated 25 February addressed to Ms Virginia Gagan-Wilson (Secretariat Coordinator at Dogs NSW), Ms Hine stated:

“I am Treasurer of the club and was Show Secretary on the day. We are a very small committee and I was the only committee person present at the inquiry.
The club Secretary was running the front counter, which at a show is always busy. The club President had dogs entered in the show, in the Utility ring, the ring that was halted. Other committee members were not present until the evenings obedience trial.”

82 It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that, “Whether the Club’s Show Committee was comprised of Ms Hine, Ms Ralphs and Mr Mackendar, or was composed of Ms Quinto, Ms Ralphs and Ms Hine, it met the definition and was properly constituted.” I do not agree.

83 I am satisfied that the only Committee member present at the Inquiry was the Acting Secretary, Ms Hine. Neither the Show Manager nor the Club President was in attendance. The Inquiry was improperly constituted. The condition precedent to appointing additional persons to comprise the Committee is not activated because the present situation is not one in which one person held dual relevant offices. As a result, the Report it produced may not have been valid under the Regulations.

84 Accordingly, in light of the incorrect constitution of the Bega Show Committee and the failures surrounding the provision and exchange of witness statements, I am of the view that Mr Smith was denied a fair hearing before the Bega Show Committee Inquiry. However, for the reasons that follow, this finding is of no consequence. It may be that where a Club is small in number and the members are involved in carrying out necessary roles on show day, it is not feasible to have the members as set out in clause 14.10 present at an inquiry. If that is the case, consideration should be given to amending that regulation.

Ground 3: Bias and discrimination

85 Mr Smith submitted that the Bega Show Committee was biased in its conduct of the investigation and in its decision on the basis that Ms Ralphs exhibited at least three of her own German Shepherds at the Club’s three dog shows that weekend, Ms Hine showed her Hungarian Vizsla that weekend and Mr Mackendar was Ms Yanina Smith’s ring steward.

86 There is no evidence to the effect that either Ms Ralphs’ or Ms Hine’s dogs were enrolled in any competitions held over the relevant weekend, let alone that their dogs were directly competing with Swanee. Even if there were such evidence, I would not have decided that the Club decision was capable of being challenged on the basis of apparent bias. The remarks of Glass JA in Maloney (extracted above at [48]) are apposite. Further, nothing turns on the fact that Mr Mackendar was Ms Yanina Smith’s ring steward: he was not part of the (improperly constituted) decision-making body. Rather, he was a witness who was present in the ring when the incident occurred and thus in a position to provide a witness account.

87 Mr Smith further argued that the Bega Show Committee discriminated against him due to the fact that Swanee was the only Rottweiler amongst those exhibited at the Friday and Saturday shows who had a docked tail. Dogs NSW had previously considered a Statewide ban on the exhibition of dogs with docked tails. However, absent evidence that one or more of the members of the Inquiry were personally opposed to tail docking, this submission is without merit.

88 Mr Smith submitted that the Dogs NSW decision was infected with the bias and discrimination that affected the Club decision. However, because I have found that the claims of bias and discrimination in relation to the Bega Show Committee fail, so too does this submission.

89 Mr Smith further complained that numerous members of the Dogs NSW Show Committee and board of directors, including Mr Tom Couchman, were dog judges. The relevance of this is not apparent to me. There is no evidence capable of suggesting that these persons were more likely to accept Ms Yanina Smith’s account for the reason that she too was a dog judge.

90 I have decided that the process leading to the Club decision was deficient in two ways: first, the Bega Show Committee was improperly constituted, and second, Ms Yanina Smith’s statement was not provided to Mr Smith in time for him to properly respond to it. These circumstances combined to deny Mr Smith a fair hearing and hence to invalidate the Club decision.

91 Dogs NSW submitted that any defect in the procedure leading to the Club decision was cured by the hearing afforded to Mr Smith in the process leading up to the Dogs NSW decision. I am satisfied that this is correct.

92 Despite the failures in procedural justice that infected the Club decision, Mr Smith was given ample opportunity to be heard in the wake of the events of 6 February 2010, during which time he secured legal representation. His statement of 6 February 2010 was provided to Dogs NSW. On 11 February he sent two emails to Dogs NSW, one containing a statement and the other containing a “List of Legal & Administrative Issues”. On 15 February he sent an email to Dogs NSW annexing a further statement. The following day, he provided his comments on the witness statements, copies of which had been provided by the Club. On 11 March 2010 Dogs NSW formally invited Mr Smith to make further submissions within 10 days. This invitation was repeated on 18 March 2010, but on 19 March 2010 Mr Smith’s solicitor advised Dogs NSW that he (Mr Smith) did not wish to make further submissions. On 22 March 2010, Dogs NSW advised Mr Smith’s solicitor that if Mr Smith changed his mind, further submissions would be accepted by 6 April 2010. Mr Smith made no further submissions.

93 It is my view that the defects in the Club decision were, contrary to Mr Smith’s assertion, cured in the hearing provided by Dogs NSW, which really was the ‘operative’ decision. Dogs NSW afforded due process to Mr Smith (Calvin v Carr [1979] 1 NSWLR 1; [1980] AC 574). The Minutes for the Dogs NSW Show Committee meeting (held 16 February 2010) demonstrate the concern of Dogs NSW to reach a decision only after it had acquired a full understanding of the relevant events and had considered all of the evidence from the relevant witnesses. The Minutes read as follows:

“ 6.3.1 Receive various copies of emails from Mr Glenn Smith expressing his concerns in relation to the conduct of the Club’s inquiry held on 6/2/10 at the Bega Valley Kennel & Obedience Club Inc.
DEFER until the next meeting .
For the Office : Please write to the Club, as a matter of URGENCY, requesting more detail, in particular, a full chronology of events and at what stage of the inquiry was Mr Smith informed of the decision. This Committee would require the answers from the Club for the next meeting.

For the Office : Please also confirm the Representatives of the Club present at the inquiry, ie, was Mr Mackendar in attendance as a witness or as a member of the inquiry panel .”

94 Having analysed the Club decision and the Dogs NSW decision, I am not persuaded that Mr Smith has been denied procedural fairness. He is not entitled to any of the declarations or orders sought.

Futility

95 The defendants submitted that it would be futile for this Court to grant relief because the Club decision was replaced by the Dogs NSW decision and the six-month period of disqualification ordered by Dogs NSW expired on 6 August 2010. Accordingly, it was submitted, relief should be refused in the Court’s discretion. I agree. Swanee’s period of disqualification has expired. Even if Mr Smith was successful in this action, it would be futile to make any order setting aside either the Club decision or the Dogs NSW decision. In any event, Mr Smith accepts that before Swanee can be entered into any further dog shows, Dogs NSW requires that Swanee pass a temperament test. Even if this Court granted the relief sought, it is not in a position to carry out the temperament test.

The claim for damages

96 Mr Smith sought that the status of the two decisions be dealt with first (although whether this should have been so was not decided by this Court as there was no notice of motion seeking a separate issue be determined pursuant to Part 28.2). Mr Smith, if successful in the earlier issues, then seeks damages. Mr Smith has stated that the suspension has prevented him from exhibiting Swanee at 14 shows including the Canberra Royal Show throughout February and March, all of which he had entered and paid entry fees in advance. Further, the suspension will prevent him entering at least another 15 dog shows which he wished to enter throughout the months of April and May. The entry forms and payment of entry fees are required to be lodged several weeks in advance of the show. Mr Smith also says that having only the one show dog, the suspension has stopped him participating in and enjoying his hobby of dog showing, which he has enjoyed for many years.

97 Mr Smith says that the suspension has caused he and his wife considerable mental stress, the reputation of Swanee has been harmed, as has his reputation as the owner, trainer and handler. According to Mr Smith, Swanee’s progress and he and his wife’s pursuit of Swanee’s Grand Championship status has been severely hampered, and the moneys paid by him have been lost throughout forfeited entry fees and expenses incurred for accommodation booked and paid for in advance to attend shows. However, in form in which the matter is currently pleaded, I cannot discern any properly pleaded cause of action.

98 The application for judicial review fails. The claim for damages is not properly pleaded. As it is currently framed the pleading is doomed to failure. I dismiss the amended statement of claim filed 26 May 2010.

99 Normally costs follow the event. The plaintiff was unsuccessful. The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs as agreed or assessed.

The Court orders:

(1) That the application for judicial review fails.

(2) The amended statement of claim filed 26 May 2010 is dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs as agreed or assessed.