Queensland Harness Racing Board v Hooper - [2008] QDC 278

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Queensland Harness Racing Board v Hooper [2008] QDC
278
PARTIES: QUEENSLAND HARNESS RACING BOARD
(Appellant)
v
DARREN IAN HOOPER
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal 120/08
DIVISION: Appellate
PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Racing Appeals Tribunal
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 28 November 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 29 August 2008
JUDGE: ANDREWS SC DCJ
ORDER: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – Racing Appeals Tribunal –
procedure on appeal to - principles on appeal from
Racing Act 2002 ss172(2), 172(3), 187, 193(1),

639 – applied.
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981)
36 ALR 598 – applied.
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993)
177 CLR – applied.
Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168 – applied.
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 – cited.
Page & Home Team Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC
613 – applied.
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007]
WASCA 97 – applied.
Barmuncol Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [1983] 2 Qd R applied.
COUNSEL: Murdoch SC for the appellant
Keane for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Schweikert lawyers for the appellant
Gabriel Ruddy and Garrett for the respondent

Mr Hooper has earned money from training horses for harness racing. Trainers must hold a licence from the Queensland Harness Racing Board (“Board”). Mr Hooper has held a Trainer B Grade Licence issued by the Board for the 2007/08 season. This appeal is brought by the Board. The Board’s appeal concerns two things. Firstly, it concerns Mr Hooper’s licence. The Board contends the licence should not have been issued because Mr Hooper failed to disclose a conviction on 21 April 2006 for possession of a small quantity of marijuana. He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and fined $300 for that possession. It is not the conviction for this offence that troubles the Board, but Mr Hooper’s failure to disclose it, as he should have, when applying for his licence in 2006 and again in 2007. The failure to disclose is evidence which the Board submits tends to show a lack in Mr Hooper of a “high level of integrity”. Licences may be granted to people to participate in the harness racing industry provided that the applicants, amongst other things, display a high level of integrity while engaging in all harness racing activities.
The appeal concerns a second thing. It concerns a matter of principle separate from the conduct of Mr Hooper. It concerns the proper approach to be taken by the Racing Appeals Tribunal and the correct principles to be used by the tribunal when determining appeals from the Board. The Board contends that the tribunal made errors when it determined Mr Hooper’s appeal from a decision of the Board not to issue a licence to Mr Hooper.
On 20 November 2007, the Board refused to Mr Hooper his application for a B Grade Trainer’s Licence for the 2007/08 season writing:
“The licence is refused on the basis that your conduct does not fulfil the QHRB requirements 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Queensland Harness Racing Board v Hooper 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: [2008] QDC 278
Decision Date: 28 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a challenge by the Queensland Harness Racing Board against the decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal. The Board sought to appeal the Tribunal's decision to overturn a penalty imposed on Mr. Hooper for an alleged breach of racing rules. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had erred in law by overturning the penalty imposed on Mr. Hooper and whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in relation to the penalty. The court had to determine if the Tribunal's decision was based on an error of law, an error in the application of the law, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law or exercised its discretion unreasonably. The Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant racing rules and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court held that the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the case was appropriate and that the penalty imposed by the Tribunal was commensurate with the breach. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.