Goodrich v Racing Victoria Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board

Goodrich was a participant in a horse racing event organised by Racing Victoria (RV). Following the event, RV's Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (the Board) found Goodrich guilty of a breach of racing rules. Goodrich sought review of the Board’s decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT set aside the Board’s decision and remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration. Goodrich appealed to the Court against the decision of VCAT. The Court was required to consider whether VCAT erred in setting aside the Board’s decision without substituting a decision of its own or remitting the matter, whether seeking the appointment documents of the stewards amounted to an abuse of process, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of VCAT.

The Court found no error in VCAT’s reasoning or conclusion that would justify overturning its decision. The Court held that VCAT correctly set aside the Board’s decision because the stewards failed to inspect the horse on race day, as required by the racing rules. The Court rejected Goodrich’s argument that VCAT erred by not substituting a decision of its own or remitting the matter. The Court held that VCAT was not obliged to make a decision in substitution for the Board’s decision or remit the matter, as it had already found the Board’s decision to be legally flawed. The Court also held that seeking the appointment documents of the stewards was not an abuse of process, as it was relevant to the consideration of whether the stewards were properly appointed. Finally, the Court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of VCAT, as there was no evidence to suggest that VCAT was biased against Goodrich.

The Court granted Goodrich’s application for leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The Court held that there was no error in VCAT’s decision that would justify overturning it. The Court held that the Board’s failure to inspect the horse on race day was a legally flawed decision that warranted setting aside. The Court held that VCAT was not obliged to substitute a decision of its own or remit the matter, as it had already found the Board’s decision to be legally flawed. The Court held that seeking the appointment documents of the stewards was not an abuse of process, as it was relevant to the consideration of whether the stewards were properly appointed. Finally, the Court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of VCAT, as there was no evidence to suggest that VCAT was biased against Goodrich. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed VCAT’s decision.