Queensland Racing Limited v McMahon - [2010] QCATA 73

CITATION:

Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon [2010] QCATA 73

PARTIES:

Queensland Racing Ltd

(Applicant/Appellant)

Mr Ric McMahon

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL067-10

MATTER TYPE:

Appeal

HEARING DATE: 27 August 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President
Dr Bridget Cullen Mandikos, Member

DELIVERED ON: 24 November 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS :

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – NATURE OF REVIEW – whether merits review afforded under s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 is constrained to a determination as to whether steward could have held an opinion that rider rode improperly.

JURISDICTIONAL FACT – Does phrase “in the opinion of the Stewards” as it is contained in Rule 137 of the Australian Rules of Racing preclude QCAT from engaging in full merits review.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss17-20, 142.
Racing Act 2002 (Qld) ss 33-34, 78-79, 91, 95-99, 150.
Australian Rules of Racing, rr 8, 10, 137.
Local Rules (Thoroughbred Racing)(AC)1(1), 1(32).

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 – considered
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 – followed

Irving v Gagliardi (1895) 6 QLJ 155 – applied

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 – considered
Pingel v R and R Leach Pty Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 533 at 534 – applied
Queensland Building Services Authority v Meredith [2010] QCATA 50 – applied
Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon [2010] QCAT 86 – cited

R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407 – considered

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 – applied
Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168 – followed

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Roger Derrington SC of counsel, instructed by Mullins Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Mr James E. Murdoch SC of counsel, instructed by Gabriel, Ruddy & Garrett

REASONS FOR DECISION

President:

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of QCAT Member Dr Bridget Cullen Mandikos. I agree with those reasons, her conclusions, and the order she proposes.

Dr Bridget Cullen Mandikos:

This is an appeal from the decision of this Tribunal in Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon [2010] QCAT 86, delivered on 16 March 2010. It is a matter about horse racing.

On the topic of horse racing, Mark Twain, in The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson, once wrote:

“It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.”

These proceedings have arisen out of just such a difference of opinion, between the stewards at the Gold Coast Turf Club on the one hand, and Mr Ric McMahon on the other, regarding Mr McMahon’s riding of the horse Haslington in race 4 at the race meeting held at the Gold Coast Turf Club on Boxing Day, 2009.

At the conclusion of that race the stewards formed the opinion that Mr McMahon…

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 Racing Limited v McMahon 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: [2010] QCATA 73
Decision Date: 24 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Queensland Racing Limited v McMahon was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute involved a decision made by the stewards of a race meeting regarding the conduct of a rider, Mr McMahon. Queensland Racing Limited (QRL) sought a review of the stewards' decision under section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the review afforded by section 20 of the QCAT Act was limited to determining whether the stewards could have held the opinion that Mr McMahon rode improperly, or if QCAT could engage in a full merits review.

The court had to determine whether the phrase "in the opinion of the Stewards" in Rule 137 of the Australian Rules of Racing restricted QCAT’s jurisdiction to review the stewards' decision. The court examined whether this phrase confined QCAT to a constrained review of the decision-making process, or whether it permitted a broader review of the merits of the decision. The tribunal considered whether the phrase indicated a subjective view held by the stewards or if it referred to an objective assessment of the facts and application of the rules. The outcome hinged on whether the phrase was intended to limit the scope of judicial review available to QCAT.

The tribunal concluded that the phrase "in the opinion of the Stewards" did not restrict QCAT's jurisdiction to a limited review of the decision-making process. Instead, the tribunal found that the phrase allowed for a full merits review. The tribunal reasoned that the phrase was not intended to confine the scope of review but rather to indicate the source of the decision, i.e., the stewards. The tribunal emphasised that the phrase did not preclude QCAT from reviewing the application of the rules and the evidence on which the stewards based their decision. Therefore, QCAT had the jurisdiction to conduct a full merits review of the stewards' decision. The tribunal granted QRL’s application for review and directed that a full merits review be undertaken.

Orders