Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy - [2012] QCAT 31

CITATION:

Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy [2012] QCAT 31

PARTIES:	Racing Queensland Ltd (Applicant)
v
Mr Larry Victor Cassidy (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR222-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Kate Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 January 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the First Level Appeals Committee of 6 October 2011 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – whether applicant failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win or obtain the best possible place in the field – where necessary to scrutinise the jockey’s decision making process having regard to the circumstances of the particular race – purpose of AR135(b) considered

Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009, s 20

Queensland Racing Ltd v Ganderton [2010] QCAT 348
Radecker v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 4

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Larry Cassidy was represented by Mr Murdoch SC instructed by Emanate Legal

RESPONDENT:

Racing Queensland was represented by Mr Byrne QC instructed by Mr Orchard of Racing Queensland

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

Larry Cassidy was the rider of Trump in Race 2 at Doomben on Saturday 17 September 2011. At the conclusion of the race the Stewards held an inquiry into Mr Cassidy’s riding of Trump. The result of the inquiry was to charge Mr Cassidy with a breach of Australian Racing Rule 135(b) in that he had failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse was given the full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the field.

The Steward’s decision was appealed to the First Level Appeals Committee and was overturned in a decision made on 6 October 2011. Racing Queensland Ltd (RQ) now seeks to review that decision pursuant to division 3 of the QCAT Act.

RQ particularised the charge directed to Mr Cassidy in the following terms:

(a) That from leaving the 1500 metres until near the 1300 metres when an opportunity existed to allow your mount Trump to improve forward to a position one off the fence outside of Craiglea Hussy and in circumstances when 2 competitors, namely All The Torque and Black Jag, were progressing to the outside of Trump, you unnecessarily and unreasonably restrained Trump and allowed All The Torque and Black Jag to cross your running, which resulted in Trump being disadvantaged by virtue of having to then race 3 wide without cover.
(b) That after restraining Trump for approximately 150 metres in the back straight which resulted in Trump being positioned some 5 lengths from the lead near the 1000 metres, and when Trump was travelling strongly under restraint when the pace of the race was only moderate, you unnecessarily and unreasonably restrained Trump between the 1000 metres and a point approaching the 800 metres, which resulted in Trump being positioned approximately 5 lengths from the lead and 3 wide without cover near the 800 metres, having, in the stewards’ view, expended…

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 Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy 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: [2012] QCAT 31
Decision Date: 23 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Racing Queensland Ltd brought an appeal against the decision of the First Level Appeals Committee, which had dismissed their appeal against the findings of the Stewards’ Inquiry that Cassidy, the trainer of a horse, had failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to win or obtain the best possible place in a race. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central issue before the tribunal was whether Cassidy had indeed failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to achieve the best possible placing for the horse in question. This required an examination of the jockey’s decision-making process within the specific context of the race, with a focus on the purpose of AR135(b). The tribunal needed to determine whether the Stewards' Inquiry had correctly assessed Cassidy's actions and if the appeals committee's decision to uphold the findings was justified.

The tribunal examined the evidence presented and the findings of the Stewards' Inquiry, which concluded that Cassidy had not taken all reasonable and permissible measures. The tribunal considered the role of the appeals committee in reviewing these findings and whether the committee had applied the correct legal principles. The tribunal found that the appeals committee had appropriately considered the evidence and the circumstances of the race, and had correctly upheld the Stewards' Inquiry findings. The tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the appeal was consistent with the relevant rules and principles. The tribunal confirmed that the appeals committee had not erred in its decision, and that Cassidy had indeed failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures.

In light of the tribunal's findings, the decision of the First Level Appeals Committee of 6 October 2011 was confirmed. This meant that the original findings against Cassidy stood, and the appeal brought by Racing Queensland Ltd was dismissed. The tribunal's decision underscored the importance of scrutinising the jockey’s decision-making process within the context of the race, in line with the purpose of AR135(b). The tribunal's ruling provided clarity on the legal standards to be applied in such cases and reinforced the need for trainers and jockeys to take all reasonable steps to achieve the best possible outcome in a race.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the First Level Appeals Committee of 6 October 2011 is confirmed.

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.