IN the MATTER of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rule 1B and 1BB & in the MATTER of the Racing and Betting Act 1980 & in the MATTER of Queensland Principal Club - [1999] QSC 12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

No 11905 of 1998

[IN THE MATTER of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rule 1B and 1BB & IN THE MATTER of The Racing and Betting Act 1980 & IN THE MATTER of Queensland Principal Club]

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rule 1B and 1BB
- and -
IN THE MATTER of The Racing and Betting Act 1980
- and -
IN THE MATTER of Queensland Principal Club
- and -
IN THE MATTER of The Kooralbyn Picnic Race Day held on 8 June 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered 29 January 1999

CATCHWORDS: RACING - participants in a “combined sports meeting” licenced under s.135 of Racing and Betting Act but not registered or authorised under Rules of Racing disqualified by Queensland Principal Club - held disqualification within jurisdiction - ss.5(definitions), 11, 11A, 11B, 16, 22, 31 and 135 of Racing and Betting Act considered - Australian Rules of Racing 2, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 35 considered - Local Rules of Racing 77 considered.

Stephen v Naylor (1937) 37 S R (NSW) 127 at 139 applied.

Counsel: Sweeney for applicants.
Dunning for respondent.

Solicitors:T F Wardrobe T/A for Hickey Lawyers for applicants.
K Martin for respondent.

Hearing Date: 14 January, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

No 11905 of 1998
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rule 1B and 1BB

- and -

IN THE MATTER of The Racing and Betting Act 1980

- and -

IN THE MATTER of Queensland Principal Club

- and -

IN THE MATTER of The Kooralbyn Picnic Race Day held on 8 June 1998

DRAFT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered 29 January 1999

On 8 June 1998 Kooralbyn Hotel Resort Ltd (“Kooralbyn”) conducted the Kooralbyn Picnic Race Day pursuant to a licence to conduct a “combined sports meeting” granted pursuant to the provisions of the Racing and Betting Act 1980 (“the Act”). Each of the four applicants (Willey, Van Rees, Hogno and Lamb) participated in the horse racing part of the program on that day. Lamb was at the time licensed as a track work rider by the Queensland Principal Club (“QPC”) pursuant to the Rules of Racing as defined in the Act; none of the other applicants was the holder of any licence thereunder. Each of the four applicants was called before a meeting of Stewards of the QPC and dealt with pursuant to Australian Rule (“AR”) 6 and Local Rule (“LR”) 77 for taking part in an unregistered race meeting. Each was disqualified with the consequences set out in AR 182 for a period of time.
Each of the applicants contends that, for a variety of reasons, QPC acted beyond power and by the Originating Summons they seek a range of declarations the effect of which would amount to holding that QPC acted beyond power and that the disqualifications were unlawful…

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.

Continue reading IN the MATTER of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rul...

Details

AGLC: In the Matter of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 64 Rule 1B and 1BB and in the Matter of the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and in the Matter of Queensland Principal Club [1999] QSC 12
Case: [1999] QSC 12
Decision Date: 29 January 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, who were participants in the Kooralbyn Picnic Race Day, sought declarations that their disqualification by the Queensland Principal Club (QPC) was unlawful and invalid. The applicants argued that the meeting was legal under the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and that QPC did not have jurisdiction to disqualify them. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules of Racing to determine if QPC had the authority to disqualify the applicants. The court found that the Act and Rules of Racing could be read together without inconsistency and that QPC had the jurisdiction to disqualify the applicants for participating in an unregistered race meeting. The applicants' argument that they were outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of QPC was also rejected, as they were participating in a race meeting which was not authorised pursuant to the Rules of Racing. The court held that QPC had the jurisdiction to deal with the applicants and that their disqualification was lawful. The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders