Ross v Harness Racing NSW - [2020] NSWSC 1397

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ross v Harness Racing NSW [2020] NSWSC 1397
Hearing dates: 9 October 2020
Date of orders: 9 October 2020
Decision date: 12 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Summons for judicial review dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – summons for judicial review – whether Racing Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to amend particulars of charge – summons dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Harness Racing Act 2009 (NSW)
Justices Act 1901 (NSW)(rep)
Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983 (NSW)
Racing Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Builders Licensing Board v Spurway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616
Comcare v Brown [1998] FCA 1144; (1998) 157 ALR 522
Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria [2017] VSC 123
Freeman v The Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 19 FCR 342; [1988] FCA 294
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286; [2008] HCA 31

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Ross (plaintiff)
Harness Racing NSW (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Robertson (plaintiff)
S Jeliba (defendant)
Solicitors:
Hammond Nguyen Turnbull (plaintiff)
Cockburn & Co (defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/181914
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Racing Appeals Tribunal

Date of Decision:

20 May 2020

Before:

D B Armati

Judgment

This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal of NSW. The Tribunal is the first defendant. It has filed a submitting appearance. Stewards appointed by Harness Racing NSW, the first defendant (“HRNSW”), found the plaintiff guilty of a breach of the Australian Rules of Harness Racing. On 5 April 2019 the plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Tribunal against that decision. On 20 May 2020 the Tribunal granted leave to HRNSW to amend the particulars of the charge. Judicial review is sought in respect of the decision to grant leave.
The plaintiff contends that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to permit an amendment of the particulars of a charge that is the subject of an appeal before it. At the conclusion of the argument I dismissed the plaintiff’s summons with costs and reserved my reasons. These are the reasons for those orders.
The decision of which judicial review is sought is interlocutory to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Submissions were made on behalf of HRNSW that the plaintiff’s summons should be dismissed in exercise of the Court’s discretion, on the basis that there is as yet no “ultimate determination”. It was further submitted that sub-ss (3) and (4) of s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) are not engaged in relation to the Tribunal’s interlocutory decision. HRNSW submitted that the absence of an “ultimate determination” means that the Tribunal’s reasons are not part of the record for the purposes of the review and also that relief in the nature of a prerogative writ cannot be granted.
Rather than endeavour to dispose of the summons upon the basis of these preliminary questions I have determined it…

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 Ross v Harness Racing NSW

Details

AGLC: Ross v Harness Racing NSW [2020] NSWSC 1397
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1397
Decision Date: 12 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ross v Harness Racing NSW was before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In this matter, the appellant, Ross, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales, which upheld a decision by Harness Racing NSW to amend the particulars of a charge against him. The tribunal had determined that it had the jurisdiction to amend the particulars of the charge, a decision that Ross contested.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Racing Appeals Tribunal had the authority to amend the particulars of a charge made against a participant in harness racing events. The appellant argued that the tribunal did not have such jurisdiction, contending that the amendment of charges was a matter reserved for the stewards of the racing club or an equivalent authority. He submitted that the tribunal's decision to amend the charges was thus beyond its statutory powers and consequently invalid.

The court considered the statutory framework governing harness racing in New South Wales and the roles and powers of the various bodies involved, including the tribunal and the stewards. It held that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to amend the particulars of a charge in certain circumstances, specifically where it was necessary to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The court found that the tribunal's decision to amend the charges was within its statutory authority and that there was no error in law that warranted judicial intervention.

The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the summons for judicial review. The court determined that the Racing Appeals Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to amend the particulars of the charge against Ross, and no grounds for review were established. As a result, the tribunal's decision was upheld, and the summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders