Golden v V'landys - [2019] NSWSC 1362

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v V’landys [2019] NSWSC 1362
Hearing dates: 3 December 2018, 1 February 2019, 11 June 2019
Decision date: 16 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
1. Strike out the statement of claim filed 28 August 2018.
2. Dismiss the proceedings with costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – strike-out application – proceedings for judicial review and misfeasance in public office – same causes of action determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties – attempt to re-litigate issues previously determined by the court with additional evidence – plaintiff bound by manner in which his lawyers conducted previous case
JUDICIAL REVIEW – application out of time for review of decision no longer having any operation – whether proceedings inutile
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28, 13.4(1), 59.10
Cases Cited: Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300
Webber v Racing NSW [2019] NSWSC 46
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (plaintiff)
Peter V’landys (first defendant)
Keven P Greene (second defendant)
Anthony G Hodgson (third defendant)
Racing New South Wales (fourth defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff self-represented
P Braham SC, D Birch (defendant)
Solicitors:
Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk (defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/263736
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Mr Joseph Golden is a professional thoroughbred horse breeder and trainer. By these proceedings, in which Mr Golden represents himself, he seeks to prosecute a number of causes of action pleaded with varying degrees of clarity against Racing NSW, the body responsible for regulating the thoroughbred racing industry in NSW, and a number of its officers or directors.
The defendants have applied to have Mr Golden’s statement of claim struck out and the proceedings summarily dismissed. I have concluded that the orders sought by the defendants should be made, for the following reasons.

Circumstances in which the proceedings are brought

In 2007, an outbreak of equine influenza was confirmed in Australia. The disease (more particularly, the quarantine measures imposed to contain it) had a devastating impact on horse racing and other equine industries, which were literally brought to a standstill. To support those industries, the Commonwealth government introduced a scheme known as Commercial Horse Assistance Payments (CHAPs) to provide financial assistance for horse-dependent businesses affected by those events.
According to an information sheet circulated by the Australian Government, the financial assistance available under the scheme was for trainers of horses that were “in work”, that is, horses undertaking “activities that generate, or have the potential to generate, an income for the owner”. The information sheet specifically stated that the scheme was limited to racehorses in work and did not extend to horses that were “spelling” (being rested).
Mr Golden formed the belief that the CHAPs scheme was being rorted through fraudulent applications, including instances of trainers seeking payments for horses that were injured or spelling. In early 2008, he raised his concerns with Mr V’landys, the Chief Executive Officer of Racing NSW.…

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 Golden v V'landys 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: [2019] NSWSC 1362
Decision Date: 16 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Golden suing V'landys, the CEO of Cricket Australia, for judicial review and misfeasance in public office. The dispute arose from the plaintiff's grievances concerning his dismissal from his position as CEO of the Australian Cricketers' Association. This court case followed a previous legal action between the same parties, which was decided in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff sought to re-litigate the same issues, introducing additional evidence, despite being bound by the manner in which his legal representatives had conducted the earlier case.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate the same issues, despite being bound by the manner in which his legal representatives had conducted the earlier case, was permissible. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the application for judicial review was out of time and whether the proceedings were inutile, given that the decision in question no longer had any operation.

The court held that the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate the same issues, despite being bound by the manner in which his legal representatives had conducted the earlier case, was not permissible. The court emphasised that the plaintiff was bound by the manner in which his lawyers had conducted the previous case, and therefore, he could not introduce additional evidence or argue different issues. Furthermore, the court found that the application for judicial review was out of time and the proceedings were inutile, as the decision in question no longer had any operation. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and awarded costs to the defendant.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed and that the defendant be awarded costs of the proceeding. The court further directed that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the nature of the proceedings and the outcome.

Orders