Greyhound Racing NSW v Cessnock & District Agricultural Association

Greyhound Racing NSW (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against declarations of procedural unfairness made by the Common Law Division concerning decisions made by the appellant under the *Greyhound Racing Act 2002* (NSW). The respondent, Cessnock & District Agricultural Association, had challenged the appellant's decisions regarding the allocation of racing dates.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant had afforded the respondent a reasonable opportunity to make submissions before reaching its decisions, whether the appellant had failed to identify the criteria it applied in making those decisions, and whether an earlier decision, found to be procedurally unfair, had infected a subsequent decision. The court also considered whether the general law principle of apprehended bias applied to a statutory administrative decision-maker in this context.

The Court of Appeal found that the Common Law Division had erred in its declarations. It reasoned that the appellant, as a statutory body, was not subject to the same strict procedural fairness requirements as a court. While procedural fairness was required, the nature and extent of that fairness depended on the specific statutory context. The court determined that the appellant had provided sufficient opportunity for the respondent to make submissions and that the criteria for decision-making, while not explicitly articulated in a formal document, were sufficiently understood and applied. Furthermore, the court held that the earlier finding of procedural unfairness did not automatically vitiate the subsequent decision, as the appellant had taken steps to address the identified deficiencies. The court also found that the apprehended bias argument was not made out.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the declarations and cost orders made by the Common Law Division. The court dismissed the respondent's summons and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs in the Court of Appeal, granting the respondent a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951* if otherwise qualified.