Queensland Racing Ltd v Ganderton - [2010] QCAT 348

Queensland Racing Ltd v Ganderton [2010] QCAT 348

PARTIES:	Queensland Racing Ltd
v
Daniel Ganderton

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR020-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 16 March 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, presiding; Susanne Holzberger; William leMass

DELIVERED ON: 29 March 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS :

Review of decision of First Level Appeals Committee; Queensland Civil and Administrative Act ss 19 and 20; whether review should be restricted to a finding of whether Stewards held an opinion as to the a breach of AR 135(b) or whether a fresh hearing on the merits; whether respondent took all reasonable and permissible measures to win or improve position; appeal dismissed.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Callaghan SC for the applicant
RESPONDENT:	Mr Murdoch SC for the respondent

Introduction

Daniel Ganderton was the rider of Deer Valley in race 8 at the Gold Coast Turf Club on 2 January 2010 which was a 2 year old handicap over 1200 metres. At the conclusion of the race Stewards charged Mr Ganderton with a breech of Australian Racing Rule 135(b) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that Deer Valley was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in field.

As a consequence of the charge being laid and proved to the satisfaction of the Stewards, Mr Ganderton’s licence to ride was suspended for a period of 2 months.

The Stewards decision was appealed to the First Level Appeals Committee and heard on 19 January 2010 and was overturned. Queensland Racing has now sought a review of that decision pursuant to the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction under division 3 of the QCAT Act.

The specific’s of the charge in relation to Mr Ganderton’s ride were as follows:

(1)That when racing some 12 lengths of the leader Alesprit, knew the 700 metres you did fail to improve your position on the back of Sweepstaking when it was reasonable and permissible to do so;

(2) That between the 600 metres and 400 metres, when Deer Valley was clear last, you failed to show sufficient vigour to improve his position failing the eventual winner, Sweepstaking, for the purpose of an argument him to come to the outside upon straightening and thereby affording Deer Valley a clear and uninterrupted run to the finish line. Instead he remained to the inside where clear running was not available, and as a consequence of his riding Deer Valley did not obtain clear running and was not fully tested until a point near the 100 metres.

AR.135 provides:

(a) Every horse shall be run on its merits

(b)The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.

(c)Any person who in the opinion of the stewards has breeched, or was a party to…

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 Ltd v Ganderton 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] QCAT 348
Decision Date: 29 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Queensland Racing Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by the First Level Appeals Committee. The committee had dismissed an appeal against a penalty imposed by the stewards of a racing club. The applicant argued that the committee should have been restricted to a finding of whether the stewards held an opinion as to a breach of AR 135(b). Instead, the committee had conducted a fresh hearing on the merits. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the committee had taken all reasonable and permissible measures to win or improve their position and had not erred in law.

The central legal issues for the court were whether the First Level Appeals Committee should have been limited to reviewing the opinion of the stewards or whether it was permissible for the committee to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits, and whether the committee had exercised its discretion in a manner that was legally sound. The court had to determine whether the committee had adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in its decision-making process.

The court found that the First Level Appeals Committee had not erred in conducting a fresh hearing on the merits. The committee was not restricted to reviewing the opinion of the stewards but had the discretion to conduct a full merits review. The court held that the committee had taken all reasonable and permissible measures to win or improve their position and had exercised its discretion in accordance with the law. The court found that the committee's decision was not tainted by any procedural unfairness and was therefore valid.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the First Level Appeals Committee was upheld. The court determined that the committee had acted within its jurisdiction and had not committed any error of law. The applicant's appeal was therefore without merit, and the original penalty imposed by the stewards remained in place.

Orders