Legal Research
Cases
Matson v Racing Appeals Tribunal

Matson v Racing Appeals Tribunal

Case [2001] VSC 264 9 August 2001

Judicial Review

Administrative Law Act 1978

Evidence on 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

No. 6582 of 2001

STEVEN RAYMOND MATSON	Applicant
v
THE RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL	First Respondent
and
THE STEWARDS OF THE HARNESS RACING BOARD	Second Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 August 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matson v The Racing Appeals Tribunal and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 264

---

Administrative Law Act 1978 – order for review – The Racing Appeals Tribunal – alleged errors of law – what constitutes the record – evidence on review – no jurisdictional errors of law demonstrated – no errors on the face of the record.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. Gillespie-Jones	McHenry Foster
For the First Respondent	No appearance
For the Second Respondent	Mr R.H. Smith	Kenna Croxford & Co

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parties................................................................................................................................................... 2

The Stewards' Inquiry....................................................................................................................... 2

The Appeal.......................................................................................................................................... 4

The Order for Review........................................................................................................................ 7

Jurisdiction Under the Act................................................................................................................ 8

Nature of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................................ 9

Record and Evidence....................................................................................................................... 19

Grounds of Review.......................................................................................................................... 23

A. The penalty imposed was unreasonable............................................................................ 24
B. The Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely, the offence
     related to the use of a prohibited substance.................................................................. 32
C. Tribunal erred in finding that a prohibited substance had been administered........... 32
D. Tribunal erred in finding that the disqualification had to be such as to reflect personal
     deterrence or general deterrence..................................................................................... 32
E. Tribunal failed to take into account that the offending against the Rule was
     inadvertent.......................................................................................................................... 33

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35

HIS HONOUR:

This is the return of an order calling upon a tribunal to show cause why a decision made by it, should not be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Law Act 1978 ("the Act").

Parties

The applicant, Steven Raymond Matson ("Mr Matson"), is a horse trainer residing in Wallan.

The first respondent, the Racing Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), is the tribunal that made the decision, which is the subject of the order for review. The decision was made on 17 May 2001 by the Tribunal, which was constituted by Mrs J. Nicholson, then a barrister, now a County Court Judge, and Messrs B. Pearce and P. Walshe, who are persons experienced in the field of harness racing. In accordance with the normal practice, the Tribunal informed the Court that it would not appear on the hearing and that it would abide the decision.

The second respondent, the Stewards of the Harness Racing Board ("the Stewards"), are persons who perform a number of important functions in harness racing in Victoria, including investigating any alleged offence contrary to the Rules of Harness Racing Victoria, holding a hearing, making findings and imposing penalties.

The Stewards' Inquiry

Mr Matson is a horse trainer who trains horses for harness racing. He has been a trainer for some years. He has been involved in harness racing for over 15 years.

On 31 May 2000, he presented a horse for…

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 Matson v Racing Appeals Tribunal

Details

AGLC: Matson v Racing Appeals Tribunal [2001] VSC 264
Case: [2001] VSC 264
Decision Date: 9 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matson v Racing Appeals Tribunal was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Matson, the appellant, sought a review of a decision made by the Racing Appeals Tribunal, which had upheld a penalty imposed on Matson by Racing Victoria. The dispute centred on the validity of the penalty, which was contested by Matson on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the applicable rules and procedures. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had made any errors of law that warranted the review and setting aside of the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had made any jurisdictional errors of law that could be identified on the face of the record. Matson argued that the Tribunal had misapplied the relevant provisions of the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1994 and the Rules of Racing, leading to an unjust outcome. The court had to assess whether the Tribunal's decision could be considered erroneous on the basis of the record alone, without requiring additional evidence or arguments. This involved a careful examination of the Tribunal's reasoning and the applicable legal standards.

The court found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions, and that there were no errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasised that the record, which included the Tribunal's written reasons for its decision, did not exhibit any jurisdictional errors. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence presented to the Tribunal was not in dispute and did not warrant a review under the Administrative Law Act 1978. Consequently, the court dismissed Matson's application for review, confirming the Tribunal's decision as lawful and appropriate.

The court's final orders were that Matson's application for review be dismissed, with costs to be paid by Matson. The penalty imposed by Racing Victoria and upheld by the Racing Appeals Tribunal remained in effect, and Matson was not granted any relief from the decision.

Orders