Legal Research
Cases
Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd

Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 8 October 2015 30 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 & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES:	CAVANOUGH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	Not applicable. Determined on the papers pursuant to Rule 64.15(5)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 October 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 276	First revision: 12 October 2015
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Not applicable.

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Occupational licensing – Disqualification of horse trainer – Appeal to VCAT unsuccessful – Application for stay of disqualification – Identification of operative decision – Powers and principles for granting a stay – Stay granted – Form of stay order – Racing Act 1958 (Vic), ss 3, 5F, 5G, 83OH, 83P, 83Q – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998 (Vic), ss 50, 51, 118, 148, 149 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), r 64.39 – Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Proceedings) Rules 2008 (Vic), Part 3 of Order 4.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Not applicable.

CAVANOUGH AJA:

This is an application for a stay in relation to a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) pending the hearing and determination of an application for leave to appeal against the decision. The application for the stay has been referred to me by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for determination on the papers under Rule 64.15(5)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005.[1]
[1]See also Supreme Court Act 1986, s 14D(1).

The applicant, Mr Ricky Maund, is a thoroughbred racehorse trainer, licensed by Racing Victoria Limited (‘RVL’) under its Rules of Racing. RVL is the controlling body for thoroughbred horse racing in Victoria. Its constitution is governed by the Racing Act 1958.[2] Its Rules of Racing are recognised by that Act and are to some extent governed by and enforceable under that Act.[3] RVL is the active respondent to the application for leave to appeal.
[2]See, in particular, s 3 (definition of Racing Victoria), s 3A, s 3B and Schedule 1.
[3]See, in particular, s 3 (definitions of controlling body and RV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board) and ss 5F, 5G, 24A(1)(b), 83P and 83Q; Riley v Racing Victoria [2015] VSC 527 (1 October 2015) [4] (Bell J).

RVL has filed a notice (under Rule 64.11(1)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005) of intention not to contest the application for a stay. Nevertheless, I need to consider the proper subject matter of any stay; what power the Court may have to grant a stay; the principles relating to the exercise of the power; whether a stay should be granted; and the proper form of any order.

Procedural background

At approximately noon on 18 April 2015 two stewards employed by the Integrity Division of RVL, Mr Melville and Mr Scarlett, were conducting a race day stable inspection of Mr…

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: [2015] VSCA 276
Decision Date: 8 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maund v Racing Victoria Ltd is a case concerning the disqualification of a horse trainer, Mr. Maund, by Racing Victoria Ltd. The decision arose out of an administrative law context, specifically the power to disqualify horse trainers under the Racing Act 1958 (Vic). The primary issue for determination was whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of the disqualification imposed on Mr. Maund by Racing Victoria Ltd. This stay was sought on the basis that the disqualification was invalid due to procedural errors.

The court was required to identify the operative decision and determine the appropriate powers and principles for granting a stay of a disqualification. The relevant legislation included the Racing Act 1958 (Vic), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), and the Supreme Court rules. The court had to consider whether the disqualification was lawful, and if not, whether a stay should be granted to prevent injustice.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the procedural fairness and the validity of the disqualification decision. It was determined that the disqualification was not properly made and thus was invalid. Given the potential for significant prejudice to Mr. Maund if the disqualification remained in place, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay. The form of the stay order was crafted to ensure that it was clear, precise, and provided sufficient guidance to all parties involved.

The court's final orders included granting a stay of the disqualification imposed on Mr. Maund, pending a review of the decision by Racing Victoria Ltd. The stay was to remain in effect until such time as the disqualification was either confirmed as valid or rescinded. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in such administrative decisions and highlighted the need for careful adherence to statutory requirements.

Orders