Legal Research
Cases
Queensland Racing v Abbott

Queensland Racing v Abbott

Case [2005] QDC 126 26 May 2005

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Racing v Abbott & Anor [2005] QDC 126

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND RACING

Appellant

v

LAUREN MICHELLE ABBOTT

First Respondent

and

DAVID JOHN PETERSEN

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD3846 of 2004

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Racing Appeals Tribunal

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed; decision of Tribunal of 30 September 2004 set aside; order in lieu that the appeal to the Tribunal be struck out. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – Racing Appeals Tribunal – whether appeal to Tribunal within jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether appeal to District Court valid

Racing Act 2002 ss 167(1)(a); 193.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 – distinguished
Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574 - applied
Collector of Customs v Brian Lawler Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307 – applied
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 - applied
Khatry v Price [1999] FCA 1289 – cited
London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 – applied
Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90 - applied
Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 – considered
Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 - cited
R v Jones (Gwyn) [1969] 2 QB 33 - cited
Schokker v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] 222 FCA - distinguished
Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248 - cited
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 – applied.

COUNSEL:

D C Andrews SC for the appellant
P J Callaghan SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Tress Cox Lawyers for the appellant
McDonald Leong Lawyers for the respondents.

The first respondent was an apprentice jockey under an indenture with the second respondent dated 11 December 2001. By clause 11.1 that indenture was to continue for a minimum of four years, but by clause 11.2 the term might be extended:

“(a) at the discretion of the Club for such further period as the Club considers is necessary to ensure that the apprentice has demonstrated competence in all learning outcomes as stipulated in the training program for apprentices to the satisfaction of the Club; or

(b) by agreement between the employer and the apprentice with the consent of the Club.”

“The Club” was defined in clause 1.1 as the Queensland Principal Club established by the Racing and Betting Act 1980. It was common ground on the appeal that the appellant is the same entity, with a new name.

Clause 11.1 referred to “a total period of apprenticeship, either with the employer or another qualified employer or employers, of a minimum of four years …” It was submitted by the appellant that that would cover time spent as an apprentice prior to the execution of this indenture, as well as time spent after the execution of it. This is of some relevance in the present case, since the first respondent had previously been indentured to other employers.

On 2 June 2004…

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.

Continue reading Queensland Racing v Abbott

Details

AGLC: Queensland Racing v Abbott [2005] QDC 126
Case: [2005] QDC 126
Decision Date: 26 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Queensland Racing Incorporated v Abbott involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Racing Appeals Tribunal in Queensland. The appellant, Queensland Racing Incorporated, challenged a decision made by the Tribunal, which had upheld an appeal by the respondent, Mr. Abbott. The crux of the dispute was whether the appeal to the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction and, if not, whether the subsequent appeal to the District Court was valid. This case was brought before the District Court of Queensland, which was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the appeals and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear Mr. Abbott's appeal and, if the Tribunal's jurisdiction was found to be lacking, whether the subsequent appeal to the District Court was valid. The court was required to scrutinise the statutory provisions governing the Tribunal's jurisdiction and assess whether the Tribunal had acted beyond its powers when it entertained and decided on Mr. Abbott's appeal. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the District Court could rectify any jurisdictional errors made by the Tribunal.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory framework that established the Racing Appeals Tribunal and the scope of its jurisdiction. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries by hearing the appeal. Given this finding, the court needed to determine the validity of the subsequent appeal to the District Court. The court concluded that the District Court was not empowered to rectify the Tribunal's jurisdictional error, leading to the determination that the appeal to the District Court was invalid. Consequently, the appeal to the Tribunal was struck out, and the decision of the Tribunal dated 30 September 2004 was set aside. The court did not make any order regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed; decision of Tribunal of 30 September 2004 set aside; order in lieu that the appeal to the Tribunal be struck out. No order as to costs.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Queensland Racing v Abbott [2005] QDC 126

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj
[2002] HCA 11 Para 1

…no decision at all.[12] [11]For example, see the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act s 100(1)(b). [12] Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 at [51] per Gaudron and Gummow JJ; [153] per Hayne J.…
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte MIAH
[2001] HCA 22 Para 1

…(1979) 53 ALJR 471. [22] Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629 at [69]; Re Minister for Immigration; ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 at [220] (where the words quoted come from); Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (supra) at [101] – [108].…
Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins
[2000] HCA 33 Para 1

…syth “ Administrative Law ” (9 th Edition, 2004) at p.950. [21]Also in (1979) 53 ALJR 471. [22] Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629 at [69]; Re Minister for Immigration; ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 at [220] (where the words quoted come from); Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (supra) at [101]…
Khatri v Price
[1999] FCA 1289 Para 1

…77 at 189 per Lord MacMillan. [16] Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248. [17] Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 at 51; Khatry v Price [1999] FCA 1289 at [15].…
Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation Ltd
[1998] FCA 169 Para 1

…l Receiver [1934] AC 245 at 251 per Lord Tomlin; McPherson v McPherson [1936] AC 177 at 189 per Lord MacMillan. [16] Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248. [17] Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 at 51; Khatry v Price [1999] FCA 1289 at [15].…
Craig v South Australia
[1995] HCA 58 Para 1

…for an appeal from a “decision” which was void for jurisdictional error, there is precious little work for it to do. [19] Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179.…
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond
[1990] HCA 33 Para 1

…application in Schokker v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] 222 FCA of passages in the judgment of Mason CJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 to emphasise that what mattered was the practical effect of the decision. It was submitted that the practical effect of the decision was that it was…
Vakauta v Kelly
[1989] HCA 44 Para 1

…he matter before the Tribunal itself but was not taken, in my opinion it is not appropriate for it to be raised now on appeal.[8] [8] Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 at 572.…
Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd
[1979] FCA 21 Para 1

…l from a purported decision which is a nullity because of a want of jurisdiction. [18] Collector of Customs v Brian Lawler Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307 at 317.…
Meyers v Casey
[1913] HCA 50

…applied Khatry v Price [1999] FCA 1289 – cited London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 – applied Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90 - applied Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 – considered Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 - cited R v Jones (Gwyn) [1969] 2 QB 33…
[1980] AC 574
[1980] AC 574 Para 1

…error – whenever the stewards have in fact given a decision disqualifying a man or a horse.” Subsequently the Privy Council in Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574 [21] held that there could be a valid appeal to the committee of the Australian Jockey Club under the rules of racing from a decision of a stewards’ enquiry…
[1965] 1 QB 456
[1965] 1 QB 456 Para 1

…he proceeding in the absence of the representative of the other party. [7]See for example R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; ex parte Moore [1965] 1 QB 456, although in that case the party was entitled to request an oral hearing but had not done so.…
[1980] 1 WLR 182
[1980] 1 WLR 182 Para 1

…a defective order removes it from the scope of appellate review.[22] [20] London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 at 187 per Lord Hailsham, p.194C per Lord Fraser, p.203 per Lord Keith. For a more recent example see R v Secretary of State for the Environment; ex parte Bath and…
[1936] AC 177
[1936] AC 177 Para 1

…mittal for the sentence in the first place was a nullity. [15] Harman v Official Receiver [1934] AC 245 at 251 per Lord Tomlin; McPherson v McPherson [1936] AC 177 at 189 per Lord MacMillan. [16] Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248. [17] Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 at 51; Khatry v Price [1…
[1969] 2 QB 33
[1969] 2 QB 33 Para 1

…as a valid appeal before it was not a nullity, and therefore was capable of supporting the appeal to this court. [14]See for example R v Jones (Gwyn) [1969] 2 QB 33, where an appeal against a sentence to the (statutory) Court of Criminal Appeal was struck out as incompetent in circumstances where the committal fo…
[1934] AC 245
[1934] AC 245 Para 1

…was struck out as incompetent in circumstances where the committal for the sentence in the first place was a nullity. [15] Harman v Official Receiver [1934] AC 245 at 251 per Lord Tomlin; McPherson v McPherson [1936] AC 177 at 189 per Lord MacMillan. [16] Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248. [17]…
[1999] 1 WLR 1759
[1999] 1 WLR 1759 Para 1

….203 per Lord Keith. For a more recent example see R v Secretary of State for the Environment; ex parte Bath and North East Somerset DC [1999] 1 WLR 1759 at 1767. The issue is discussed in Wade and Forsyth “ Administrative Law ” (9 th Edition, 2004) at p.950. [21]Also in (1979) 53 ALJR 471. [22] Residual Assco Group…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Racing Act 2002 (Qld)
167(1)(a) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
85(5) 1 mention (from Para 1)
Racing and Betting Act 1980 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
1 mention

CITATION:	Queensland Racing v Abbott & Anor [2005] QDC 126
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND RACING Appellant v LAUREN MICHELLE ABBOTT First Respondent and DAVID JOHN PETERSEN Second Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD3846 of 2004
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Racing Appeals Tribunal
DELIVERED ON:	26 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2005
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed; decision of Tribunal of 30 September 2004 set aside; order in lieu that the appeal to the Tribunal be struck out. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – Racing Appeals Tribunal – whether appeal to Tribunal within jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether appeal to District Court valid Racing Act 2002 ss 167(1)(a); 193. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 – distinguished Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574 - applied Collector of Customs v Brian Lawler Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307 – applied Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 - applied Khatry v Price [1999] FCA 1289 – cited London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 – applied Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90 - applied Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 – considered Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR(NSW) 45 - cited R v Jones (Gwyn) [1969] 2 QB 33 - cited Schokker v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] 222 FCA - distinguished Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation (1998) 153 ALR 248 - cited Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 – applied.
COUNSEL:	D C Andrews SC for the appellant P J Callaghan SC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Tress Cox Lawyers for the appellant McDonald Leong Lawyers for the respondents.