Legal Research
Cases
Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd

Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 8 June 2016 33 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2015 0085

RICKY MAUND	Applicant
V
RACING VICTORIA LIMITED (ACN 096 917 930)	First Respondent
And
THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, ASHLEY and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 June 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 132
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Maund v Racing Victoria Limited (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 1303 (Vice President Jenkins J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Disciplinary tribunal – Sporting code – Proceedings for breach of rules – Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board – Applicant found guilty – Appeal to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Appeal by way of re-hearing – Statements obtained by Racing Victoria from applicant’s employee – Whether admissible – Whether Tribunal bound to exclude – Employee not called but made available for cross-examination – Whether adverse inference from failure to call – Inferences – Circumstantial case – Alternative hypotheses – Whether open to Tribunal to find applicant responsible – Leave to appeal refused – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ss 97, 98; Racing Act 1958 ss 5F, 5G, Part III BA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D P Sheales and Mr T Purdey	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler
For the Respondent	Dr C L Pannam QC and Mr J Hooper	Minter Ellison

MAXWELL P

ASHLEY JA
KAYE JA:

The applicant is a licensed racehorse trainer under the Australian Rules of Racing (“the Rules”). On 20 July 2015 the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (‘the Board’) found him guilty of two breaches of Rules prohibiting the administration of particular medication to a horse on a race day. The Board disqualified the applicant for a period of six months.

The applicant appealed that decision to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). By a decision delivered on 21 August 2015, Judge Jenkins, a Vice President of the Tribunal, affirmed the findings of the Board. The applicant sought leave, pursuant to s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘the Act’), to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal and the orders made by it.

At the conclusion of argument on the hearing of the leave application, we announced that leave to appeal would be refused and that the reasons for our decision would be published subsequently. These are those reasons.

The facts

On 18 April 2015, shortly before midday, two stewards from Racing Victoria Compliance Assurance Team, Mr Melville and Mr Scarlett, attended at the applicant’s stables in Cranbourne in order to carry out a stable inspection of the three horses that the applicant had entered to race at Caulfield Racecourse that afternoon, namely, ‘General Truce’, ‘Uncle Keithy’ and ‘Ultimate Doom’. Upon entering the stables, the stewards witnessed Luke Bryers, who was engaged on a casual basis by the applicant as a strapper and track rider, leaving the pen of another horse, ‘Kunzite’. That horse was not due to race on…

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 Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd 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: [2016] VSCA 132
Decision Date: 8 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd involved a dispute regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who was found guilty by the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board of breaching certain rules. The applicant appealed the decision to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for a re-hearing. The primary issues before the court were whether certain statements obtained by Racing Victoria from the applicant's employee were admissible, and if the Tribunal was bound to exclude them. Additionally, the court considered whether the Tribunal could draw adverse inferences from the fact that the employee was not called as a witness, despite being made available for cross-examination. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable due to the failure to consider alternative hypotheses and the potential for bias.

The court examined the relevant statutes and the principles of administrative law that govern disciplinary tribunals in sporting codes. It was established that the Tribunal has the discretion to exclude evidence obtained in an unfair manner, but this does not necessarily mean that it is bound to do so. The court found that the Tribunal was not bound to exclude the statements in question, as the circumstances surrounding their procurement did not render them inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that an adverse inference could not be drawn from the failure to call the employee, as they were made available for cross-examination, and the Tribunal was not obligated to call every available witness.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the Tribunal's reasoning was sound, and the evidence was properly considered. The court held that it was open to the Tribunal to find the applicant responsible for the breach of rules, based on the circumstances and the evidence presented. The court further held that the Tribunal did not err in its consideration of alternative hypotheses or in drawing inferences from the available evidence. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders