Hansen v Racing Queensland Ltd

[2012] QCAT 96

CITATION: Hansen v Racing Queensland Ltd [2012] QCAT 96

PARTIES:	Debbie-Rose Hansen (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR237-11

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 5 March 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application for costs dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs – where condition on licence withdrawn after a review application was filed by the applicant – where contended that the respondent unnecessarily caused the applicant a disadvantage

Queensland Civil and Administrative TribunalAct 2009, s 100

Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Hansen applied to Racing Queensland for a thoroughbred trainers licence.  On 4 October 2011 Racing Queensland made a decision that Ms Hansen would be granted a licence subject to certain conditions.  These conditions included Ms Hansen sitting and passing the trainers licence test, satisfying certain insurance requirements, and Racing Queensland undertaking a stable inspection.  It also included a condition that she not train horses previously trained by Darryl Hansen. 

1. Ms Hansen’s solicitors wrote to Racing Queensland and complained about the condition that she not train horses previously trained by Darryl Hansen and insisted that it be removed.  Upon considering the request, Ms Hansen’s solicitors were advised that the condition would be removed.

1. However, before receiving Racing Queensland’s decision to remove the condition Ms Hansen filed an application to review the decision imposing the condition in the Tribunal on 20 October 2011.  With the removal of the condition, there was little point in proceeding with the application for review so Racing Queensland filed an application to strike out or dismiss the review application on 24 November 2011.  This application was opposed and at a subsequent directions hearing, it was agreed between the parties that the only outstanding issue for consideration by the Tribunal was the question of costs.  Directions were then made for the applicant to file submissions on costs and for Racing Queensland to respond.

1. The starting point on any application for costs is section 100 of the QCAT Act which mandates that each party to a proceeding must bear their own costs for the proceeding. Section 102 creates an exception if, in the interests of justice, the Tribunal considers that another order should be made. The section also provides assistance as to what matters might be taken into account when considering a costs order and they include whether a party acts in a way which unnecessarily disadvantages the other party, the nature and complexity of the proceeding, and the relative strengths of the claims made. In particular, in review applications, consideration can be given to whether or not an applicant was afforded natural justice and whether there was a genuine attempt to help the decision maker to make a decision on the merits. The financial circumstances of the parties are also a consideration.

1. Ms Hansen complains that Racing Queensland never had any basis upon which to impose the condition prohibiting her, if she met all the other conditions, from training horses in Darryl Hansen’s stable.  To protect her position, she was then forced to file the review application.  She relies in particular on the fact that her solicitors wrote to Racing Queensland prior to the filing of the application requesting that the condition be removed.  She also contends that at all times Racing Queensland knew that the condition imposed was unreasonable and would not withstand scrutiny on the hearing of the application for review.

1. Racing Queensland’s motive for including the condition initially was that it was aware Ms Hansen is the wife of Darryl Hansen who was, at the time of her application, in the process of reviewing a decision of Racing Queensland to disqualify him from a holding a trainers licence for nine months.  Australian Racing Rule 191 provides that except with the consent of Racing Queensland no close associate of a disqualified person shall be permitted to train horses of that person.  Ultimately Mr Hansen’s review application was dismissed and a subsequent appeal was dismissed.  He remains disqualified from holding a trainer’s licence.

1. In the particular circumstances that prevailed at the time of considering Ms Hansen’s application, Racing Queensland seemed to have some grounds for imposing the condition given the requirements of AR 191.  I am not satisfied that this was necessarily causing Ms Hansen a disadvantage.

1. The difficulty Ms Hansen has on her application of costs is to overcome the strong contra indication against costs orders in section 100.[1]

   [1]Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412.

1. I’m not satisfied that this is a case where the interests of justice do require an adverse costs order against Racing Queensland and therefore the application for costs is dismissed.