Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon - [2010] QCAT 86

CITATION:

Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon [2010] QCAT 86

PARTIES:	Queensland Racing Ltd
v
Ric McMahon

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR024-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 16 March 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, presiding; Susann Holzberger; William leMass

DELIVERED ON: 6 April 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 137 or whether a fresh hearing on the merits; whether respondent engaged in “improper” riding(a); appeal dismissed.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

Introduction

Ric McMahon was the rider of Haslington in race 4 at the Gold Coast Turf Club on 26 December 2009. At the conclusion of the race Stewards charged Mr McMahon with a breach of Australian Racing Rule 137(a) in that he rode Haslington in an improper manner within the meaning of that Rule.

As a consequence of the charge being laid and proved to the satisfaction of the stewards, Mr McMahon’s licence to ride was suspended for a period of 3 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 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act (“the QCAT Act”).

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

“That as the rider of Haslington in race 4 at the Gold Coast Turf Club meeting on Saturday 26 December 2009, in that your action of moving Haslington wider on the home turn, thus presenting the opportunity for Coming up Trumps to take the run to the inside of Singing the Blues rather than availing Haslington of that run that had become available to you was improper”

AR.137 provides:

Any rider may be punished if, in the opinion of the stewards,
Every horse shall be run on its merits

a.He is guilty of careless, reckless, improper, incompetent or foul riding.

Nature of review

It is contended by Mr Callaghan SC., who appeared for the Applicant, that although the approach that should be taken by the Tribunal in reviewing the decision of the stewards, pursuant of section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act (“the QCAT Act”), is a review on the merits, the review should be limited to whether the stewards could reasonably have held an opinion, and if they did, that is the end of the matter. Section 20 provides:
(1) The purpose of the review of this decision is to produce a correct and preferable decision.
(2) The Tribunal must hear and decide of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits”.

The…

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 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] QCAT 86
Decision Date: 6 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McMahon, the respondent, appealed against a decision of the First Level Appeals Committee (FLAC) which found that the Stewards had held an opinion that McMahon had engaged in improper riding in breach of the Australian Rules of Racing (ARR) rule 137. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), and subsequently appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the review of the FLAC's decision should be restricted to a finding of whether the Stewards held an opinion as to the breach of ARR 137, or whether a fresh hearing on the merits should be held. The Court also had to determine whether McMahon had engaged in "improper" riding.

The Court of Appeal found that the review of the FLAC's decision should be limited to a finding of whether the Stewards held an opinion as to the breach of ARR 137. The Court held that a fresh hearing on the merits was not appropriate in this case, as it would amount to an appellate function beyond the scope of the review provisions under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act. The Court found that the Stewards had indeed held an opinion that McMahon had engaged in improper riding, and therefore the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to determine whether McMahon had engaged in "improper" riding, as the finding that the Stewards held such an opinion was sufficient to uphold the decision of the FLAC.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that McMahon's appeal against the decision of the FLAC was dismissed, and that the costs of the appeal were to be paid by McMahon to the Racing Industry Integrity Commission (RIIC), the appellant. The Court did not order a fresh hearing on the merits, and therefore no further evidence or argument was required on the issue of whether McMahon had engaged in "improper" riding. The decision of the FLAC that McMahon had engaged in improper riding was upheld.

Orders