Mitchell v Racing Queensland Limited - [2011] QCAT 160

CITATION:

Mitchell v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 160

PARTIES:	Mr Phillip Mitchell
v
Racing Queensland Limited

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR034-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
William LeMass, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Respondent of 14 February 2011 that the Applicant breached Australian Harness Racing Rule 243 be set aside.

2. That the penalty imposed for the breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 247 of 9 months disqualification be set aside.

3. For breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 247 the Applicant be fined the sum of $2,000.00 and to be paid by 30 June 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – whether evidence establishes applicant’s breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 243 – where respondent alleges specific words used by applicant resulting in conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the industry – where applicant denies that the specific words were said – where evidence of complainant not corroborated by independent witnesses – standard of proof

Penalty – breach of AHRR 247 – where applicant disqualified from holding a trainers licence for 9 months – whether penalty excessive and out of line with comparative penalties – where monetary penalty appropriate

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 20

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 360 at 362

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Applicant Philip Mitchell represented by Mr Murdoch SC
RESPONDENT:	Racing Queensland represented by Mr Orchard, solicitor for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant is a licensed harness racing trainer. On 23 February 2011 Mr Mitchell was charged with two breaches of the Australian Harness Racing Rules. The first charge was in respect of a breach of Rule 243 which provides:

“A person employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry shall not behave in a way which is prejudicial or detrimental to the industry.”

The particulars of that charge are that during a race meeting at Albion Park on 1 January 2011 he made a comment detrimental to the harness racing industry in that he said in a public grandstand, “racing at Albion Park is corrupt”. To that charge he pleaded not guilty when brought before the stewards.

He was also charged with a breach of rule 247 which provides:

“A person attending before the Controlling Body its members or employees, the stewards, officials or at any proceeding under these rules, shall not speak or behave in a malicious, intimidatory or otherwise improper manner.”

The particulars of that charge are that at an interview with Mr Knibbs, Chief Steward of Harness Racing, Mr Mitchell made improper comments in particular, comments about high level corruption and, further, that certain persons within the harness racing industry are “koala bears”, that is, a protected species.

To that charge, he pleaded guilty when brought before the stewards. However, in the hearing before this…

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 Mitchell v Racing Queensland Limited

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 160
Case: [2011] QCAT 160
Decision Date: 4 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mitchell, was in dispute with Racing Queensland Limited over allegations that he breached Australian Harness Racing Rule 243. Racing Queensland Limited claimed that Mitchell used specific words that were prejudicial or detrimental to the industry. Mitchell denied using the specific words in question. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Mitchell's actions constituted a breach of the rule and, if so, to consider the appropriate penalty. The court needed to assess the evidence provided, including whether the complainant's evidence was corroborated by independent witnesses, and to decide on the appropriate standard of proof.

The court examined the nature of the evidence presented by Racing Queensland Limited. It was noted that the complainant's evidence was not supported by any independent witnesses. The court had to consider the standard of proof required in such cases and whether the evidence met this threshold. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the penalty imposed by Racing Queensland Limited, specifically a 9-month disqualification from holding a trainer's licence. The court needed to determine whether this penalty was excessive and inconsistent with similar penalties in comparable cases, and whether a monetary penalty might be more appropriate.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the decision by Racing Queensland Limited that Mitchell breached Rule 243 was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court held that the complainant's evidence was not corroborated, and therefore, the standard of proof was not met. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of 14 February 2011. Regarding the penalty, the court determined that the 9-month disqualification was excessive and out of line with comparative penalties. Instead, the court imposed a fine of $2,000, payable by 30 June 2011, for the breach of Rule 247. The orders of the court included setting aside the original decision and penalty, and imposing a new fine as the appropriate penalty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Respondent of 14 February 2011 that the Applicant breached Australian Harness Racing Rule 243 be set aside.

2. That the penalty imposed for the breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 247 of 9 months disqualification be set aside.

3. For breach of Australian Harness Racing Rule 247 the Applicant be fined the sum of $2,000.00 and to be paid by 30 June 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.