Golden v V'landys - [2015] NSWSC 1709

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Hearing dates: 10 and 11 November 2015
Decision date: 17 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
1. Judgment for the defendants.
2. Unless any party makes an application for a different order in writing to my Associate within seven days, order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:
JUDICAL REVIEW – actual bias – apprehended bias – unreasonableness – whether bad faith or improper purpose – whether decisions of Racing NSW to suspend trainer’s licence and to warn plaintiff off racetracks could be impugned
TORT – misfeasance in public office – whether invalid or unauthorised act – requisite intention not established – loss not proved
Legislation Cited: Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 13
Racing Appeals Regulation 2010 (NSW), cll 5, 6
Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983 (NSW), ss 15, 16, 18
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 6, 11, 11A, 12, 13, 14, 14AA, 21, 24
Cases Cited: Boral Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd v Magill (1993) 32 NSWLR 501
Ebner v Official Trustee [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337
Farrington v Thomson and Bridgland [1959] VR 286
Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [2005] EWCA 1117
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy [2002] HCA 51; 210 CLR 438
Industrial Equity Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 649
McGovern v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWCA 209; 72 NSWLR 504
Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; 244 CLR 427
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1; 241 CLR 594
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; 205 CLR 507
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307
Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex Parte H [2001] HCA 28; 75 ALJR 982
SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 79
SCAS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 397
Texts Cited: Australian Rules of Racing
Local Rules of Racing
Racing NSW Board Code of Conduct
Rules of Betting
Rules of Racing of Racing NSW
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Golden (Plaintiff)
Peter V’landys (First Defendant)
Racing New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
AD Crossland/D Sweeney (Plaintiff)
I Jackman SC/N Owens (First Defendant)
H El-Hage (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Koffels Solicitors & Barristers (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (First Defendant)
DLA Piper (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/140063

Judgment

Introduction

Joseph Golden, the plaintiff, challenges two decisions made by Peter V’landys, the first defendant, on behalf of Racing New South Wales (Racing NSW), the second defendant. Mr V’landys is, and was at the relevant time, the Chief Executive of NSW Racing. The first decision, made on 8 June 2011, resulted in the plaintiff’s trainer’s licence being suspended for six months. The second decision, made on 24 June 2011, resulted in the plaintiff…

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: [2015] NSWSC 1709
Decision Date: 17 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Golden v V'landys involved the plaintiff, a horse trainer, who sought judicial review of decisions made by Racing New South Wales (Racing NSW) to suspend his licence and to warn him off racetracks. The defendants included Racing NSW and its Chief Executive Officer. The plaintiff argued that the decisions were made with actual or apprehended bias, or were otherwise unreasonable. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to establish misfeasance in public office against the defendants.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the decisions of Racing NSW to suspend the plaintiff's licence and to warn him off racetracks could be impugned on the grounds of actual or apprehended bias, or on the basis that they were unreasonable. Furthermore, the court examined whether the plaintiff could establish the tort of misfeasance in public office against the defendants, given that the requisite intention for such a claim was not demonstrated and the plaintiff failed to prove a loss.

The court found that the decisions of Racing NSW were not tainted by actual or apprehended bias, nor were they unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence of bad faith or an improper purpose influencing the decisions. Additionally, the plaintiff's claim of misfeasance in public office was dismissed, as the court determined that the requisite intention for such a claim was not established and the plaintiff could not prove a loss. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the claims in tort were also rejected.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application for judicial review be dismissed with costs. Additionally, the claims in tort against the defendants were also dismissed with costs. The court did not award any remedy to the plaintiff and determined that the defendants were not liable for the plaintiff's grievances.

Orders