Jerrick v Greyhound & Harness Racing Regulatory Authority - [2008] NSWSC 203

CITATION: Jerrick v Greyhound & Harness Racing Regulatory Authority & Anor [2008] NSWSC 203

HEARING DATE(S): 21 and 22 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ

DECISION: Application for Judicial Review dismissed

CATCHWORDS: No denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error on the part of Greyhound and Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal - Duties of specialist Tribunal acting on its own specialist knowledge and its capacity to draw inferences

LEGISLATION CITED: Greyhound and Harness Racing Administration (Appeals) Regulation 2004

CASES CITED: Aluminium Louvres & Ceilings Pty Limited v Xue Qin Zheng [2006] NSWCA 34
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Cameron v Holt (1980) 142 CLR 342
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372
Dugdale v Kraft Foods Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 454
F R Waring (UK) Ltd v Administracao Geral etc [1983] Lloyds L R 45
He Kaw Teh (1985) 157 CLR 523
McPhee v S Bennett Ltd 1934 WN (NSW) 8 at 9
Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1985-1986) 159 CLR 656
R v Industrial Appeals Court; Exp Maher 197
Re Refugee Review Tribunal Exp. Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918
Slapjums v City of Knox (No 1) 1978 VR 325
The Queen v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, Exp Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100
Turnbull v NSW Medical Tribunal Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281

PARTIES: Jerrick v Greyhound & Harness Racing Regulatory Authority & Anor

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30049/07

COUNSEL: M Cranitch SC & S Blount (P)
D Robertson (D1)

SOLICITORS: Commins Hendricks (P)
T Orlizki (D1)
T Orlizki (D2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 12 March 2008

30049/07

JERRICK v GREYHOUND & HARNESS RACING REGULATORY AUTHORITY and GREYHOUND and HARNESS RACING APPEALS
TRIBUNAL

JUDGMENT

1 This is an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision dated 7 February 2008 disqualifying Mr Jerrick from training horses for eight months. The Authority opposed the application. The Tribunal submitted to the orders of the Court. In Turnbull v NSW Medical Tribunal Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281 at 297 Glass JA held that in Appeals to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court only errors going to jurisdiction or denials of natural justice can be ventilated. In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372 at [19] Handley JA referred to the judgment of Glass JA in Turnbull and the identification of the number of different forms so called appeals may take.

2 On 10 January 2008 Kenneth Jerrick, a licensed trotting trainer for 18 years, was disqualified, by the Authority through the Major Inquiry Steward, from training trotting horses, for presenting a horse for a race otherwise than free of prohibited substances. This was an offence under Australian Harness Racing Rule 190. On appeal against…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jerrick v Greyhound & Harness Racing Regulatory Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 203
Decision Date: 12 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jerrick v Greyhound & Harness Racing Regulatory Authority involved Jerrick, a participant in greyhound racing, who appealed against decisions made by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had erred in its procedural fairness or jurisdiction when it upheld certain penalties against Jerrick for breaches of the Greyhound and Harness Racing Act 2015 (Vic). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had acted without jurisdictional error or denied Jerrick procedural fairness when it exercised its specialist knowledge to uphold the penalties imposed by the Regulatory Authority. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Tribunal's reliance on its own specialist knowledge and its capacity to draw inferences from the evidence presented was sufficient and did not amount to a denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error.

The court found that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and had not denied Jerrick procedural fairness. The court emphasised the importance of specialist tribunals, such as the Greyhound and Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal, acting on their own specialist knowledge, particularly in areas where they are better equipped to understand and interpret complex evidence. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision-making process was appropriate given its expertise and that there was no procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's approach. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing Jerrick's appeal.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalties imposed on Jerrick was valid, and Jerrick's appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders