Legal Research
Cases
Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd

Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd

Case [2022] VSC 813 19 December 2022

Statutory Interpretation

Judicial Review

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 00206

BETWEEN:

RICHARD LAMING	Applicant
– and –
RACING VICTORIA LTD (ACN 096 917 930)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Cavanough J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 December 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2022 (revised from oral, ex tempore reasons and published in writing on 28 February 2023). Further revised on 6 March 2023.
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 813

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Statutory interpretation – Construction of statutory provisions limiting jurisdiction and powers of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in racing disciplinary cases – Whether VCAT failed to properly recognise and apply the statutory limitations – Whether error of law – Whether any error of law material – Whether discretionary grounds for refusal of relief – Material error of law established and no basis for discretionary refusal of relief – Appeal from VCAT allowed accordingly – Racing Act 1958 s 83OH – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s 51, sch 1 cl 66N.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	DP Sheales with T Purdey	Guthrie & Associates
For the Respondent	AM Dinelli SC with JC Hooper	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction: written reasons now given for orders previously made

On 19 December 2022, under s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘the VCAT Act’), I granted leave to appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’), allowed the appeal, set aside VCAT’s decision, remitted the matter to VCAT for re-hearing according to law and made orders as to costs. I gave oral, ex tempore, summary reasons for judgment. I foreshadowed that I would supply revised, written reasons in due course and I suspended the running of time for any appeal pending the same. These are my revised, written reasons.

The Victorian Racing Tribunal disciplines a racehorse trainer

The applicant, Mr Richard Laming, is a professional trainer of thoroughbred racehorses. He holds a trainer’s licence issued to him by the respondent, Racing Victoria Ltd (‘RVL’), under RVL’s Rules of Racing.

RVL brought three closely related disciplinary charges[1] against Mr Laming in the Victorian Racing Tribunal (‘VRT’) pursuant to RVL’s Rules of Racing and the Racing Act 1958 (as amended).[2] Each charge was of an alleged ‘serious offence’ within the meaning of certain of RVL’s Rules of Racing that relate, broadly speaking, to prohibited substances in racehorses. Mr Laming pleaded not guilty to the most serious of the three disciplinary charges and guilty to the other two. The VRT dealt with the contested charge first. After hearing evidence and submissions over two days and reserving its decision, the VRT dismissed that charge, giving detailed written reasons. Subsequently, the VRT heard submissions on the two remaining charges to which Mr Laming had pleaded guilty. In due course, on the more serious of those two charges, the VRT suspended…

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 Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd

Details

AGLC: Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd [2022] VSC 813
Case: [2022] VSC 813
Decision Date: 19 December 2022 (revised from oral, ex tempore reasons and published in writing on 28 February 2023). Further revised on 6 March 2023.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Laming v Racing Victoria Ltd, the plaintiff, Laming, appealed against a decision made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in a racing disciplinary case. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of statutory provisions that limit the jurisdiction and powers of VCAT in such matters. The primary issue before the court was whether VCAT had properly recognised and applied the statutory limitations on its powers when it made its decision.

The court examined whether VCAT had committed an error of law in interpreting and applying the statutory provisions of the Racing Act 1958 and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Specifically, the court considered whether VCAT had overlooked or misinterpreted the limitations on its jurisdiction and powers as provided by sections 83OH of the Racing Act and clause 66N of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The court found that VCAT had indeed made a material error of law in its interpretation and application of these statutory provisions. Moreover, the court determined that there were no discretionary grounds available to refuse relief in light of the established error of law.

The court concluded that the material error of law identified was significant enough to warrant the allowance of the appeal. Consequently, the court allowed Laming’s appeal against VCAT’s decision, thereby reversing the disciplinary decision made by VCAT. The court did not specify further orders in its judgment, leaving it to the parties to proceed as they saw fit under the circumstances.

Orders