Legal Research
Cases
Ings v Racing New South Wales

Ings v Racing New South Wales

Case [2022] NSWSC 1127 25 August 2022

Procedural Fairness

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Occupations

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Ings v Racing New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 1127
Hearing dates: 12 August 2022
Date of orders: 25 August 2022
Decision date: 25 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Basten AJ
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the amended summons for judicial review of the decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal of 2 May 2022.
(2) Order that the plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs in this Court.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – procedural fairness – disciplinary proceeding – appeal by way of fresh hearing – penalty increased on appeal –– whether Parker warning required – sufficient notice that prosecutor sought penalty increase
ANIMALS – racing – Australian Rules of Racing – administration of stomach tubing – procedure not permitted within 24 hours of beginning of race day
OCCUPATIONS – thoroughbred horse racing – Australian Rules of Racing – AR 255, AR 283 – penalty for breach – mandatory minimum period of disqualification – special circumstances – early guilty plea – impaired mental function – whether special circumstances caused breach – common sense test of causation
OCCUPATIONS – thoroughbred horse racing – construing Rules of Racing – special circumstances permitting lesser period of disqualification – reduction determined by reference only to special circumstance – authority as to earlier version of rules – McDonald v Racing New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 1511 applied – statutory interpretation principles – Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 4 applied

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5D
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 99
Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983 (NSW), ss 5, 15, 16, 17
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Australian Rules of Racing (7 January 2019), AR 196
Australian Rules of Racing (1 August 2021), AR 255, 283
Local Rules of Racing NSW (1 July 2021), LR 108

Cases Cited:
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 356; [1990] HCA 33
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Day v Harness Racing New South Wales (2014) 88 NSWLR 594; [2014] NSWCA 423
Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268 at 277; [1954] HCA 74
Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union [1973] AC 15
Insurance Australia Ltd t/a NRMA Insurance v Milton [2016] NSWCA 156
Jacques v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Engineering Section) [1987] 1 All ER 621
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; [1991] HCA 12
McDonald v Racing New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 1511
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17; 96 ALJR 497
Porter v The National Union of Journalists [1980] IRLR 404
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 4

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 Ings v Racing New South Wales

Details

AGLC: Ings v Racing New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 1127
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1127
Decision Date: 25 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the parties involved were Ings, a participant in thoroughbred horse racing, and Racing New South Wales, the governing body for the sport in New South Wales. The dispute arose from a disciplinary proceeding concerning the administration of stomach tubing to a horse in violation of the Australian Rules of Racing. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, which heard an appeal by way of fresh hearing. The central issues before the court were whether the appellant had been given adequate notice of the prosecutor's intention to seek an increased penalty and whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with the rules governing thoroughbred horse racing.

The court addressed the issue of procedural fairness, considering whether the appellant had received a sufficient warning, as required by the Parker doctrine, about the prosecutor's intention to seek a higher penalty. The court found that the appellant had been given adequate notice that the prosecutor was seeking a penalty increase, thus satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court examined the applicability of special circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty under the Australian Rules of Racing. It concluded that any reduction in the penalty should be based solely on the special circumstances, as per the statutory interpretation principles outlined in Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd. The court applied these principles to interpret the relevant rules and found that the special circumstances did not justify a lesser period of disqualification.

The court's reasoning led to the outcome that the penalty imposed on the appellant was in accordance with the rules. The court acknowledged the common sense test of causation in determining whether the special circumstances caused the breach. It held that the reduction in the penalty should only be determined by reference to the special circumstance, applying the authority from McDonald v Racing New South Wales. The court ultimately upheld the penalty imposed by the disciplinary body, finding it to be appropriate and in line with the relevant rules and principles. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original penalty remained in effect.

Orders