Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Endresz; Racing Queensland Board v Endresz

The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and Racing Queensland Board (collectively, the appellants) appealed against the decision of the primary judge, who found that the owners of a racehorse (the respondents) were entitled to procedural fairness prior to the disqualification of their horse following the detection of a prohibited substance. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the primary judge correctly held that the Australian Rules of Racing did not confer a right of appeal to the respondents and, if so, whether the appellants were still required to afford procedural fairness at first instance. The court examined the nature of the right of appeal provided under the Australian Rules of Racing, and whether the existence of such a right precluded the requirement for natural justice at first instance.

The primary issue before the court was whether the Australian Rules of Racing provided a right of appeal to the respondents, and if not, whether the appellants were obliged to afford the respondents procedural fairness. The court considered whether the provision of a right of appeal excluded the application of procedural fairness principles, and whether the right of appeal applied to the respondents. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether, even if the respondents had a right of appeal, the appellants were still required to afford them procedural fairness at first instance.

The court found that the Australian Rules of Racing did not confer a right of appeal to the respondents, as the primary judge had determined. The court held that the provision relating to the right of appeal was not applicable to the respondents in the present case. The court also held that, despite the existence of a right of appeal, the appellants were still required to afford the respondents procedural fairness at first instance. The court held that the right of appeal did not exclude the application of procedural fairness principles and that the appellants were obliged to afford the respondents procedural fairness prior to disqualifying their horse.

The appeals were dismissed, the applications by the Commission were refused, and the parties were granted leave to make submissions about costs in accordance with the Practice Direction. The court's decision confirmed that the appellants were required to afford procedural fairness to the respondents, notwithstanding the existence of a right of appeal under the Australian Rules of Racing.