Schultz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2022] QCAT 152

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Schultz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 152

PARTIES:

DENIS JOHN SCHULTZ

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR114-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

16 November 2021

(closing written submissions filed 17 December 2021, 28 January 2022 and 11 February 2022).

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

1. The application to rely upon fresh evidence in the proceedings filed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission on 20 December 2021 is allowed.

2. The decision of Queensland Racing Integrity Commission of 30 April 2021 confirming the decision of the Stewards who found Denis John Schultz breached the Australian Rules of Racing AR231(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) and imposed a penalty of suspension of Mr Schultz’s licence for 12 months is set aside and the following decision is substituted:

The charge that Denis John Schultz breached Australian Rules of Racing AR231(1)(b)(iii) is not substantiated.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS - where licensed trainer responsible for horse – where complaint received about the horse – where licensed trainer charged and found guilty for breach of Australian Rules of Racing AR231(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) - where penalty imposed by the stewards – where trainer applied for an internal review – where decision upheld on internal review – where trainer applies for review – whether charges proven – whether the Australian Rules of Racing apply – whether the involvement of the stewards was beyond the boundaries of the functions of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

Australian Rules of Racing, AR 231

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 23
Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 101
Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 7

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCATA 125

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Kadniak [2017] QCATA 102

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J E Murdoch QC instructed by South Geldard Lawyers

Respondent:

A Freeman instructed by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Denis Schultz is a licensed trainer of thoroughbred horses who was responsible for ‘Citiwyse x Lady Long Legs’, a three year old filly (‘the filly’).
On 27 August 2020, the RSPCA received an anonymous report about the filly. This prompted the Stewards to visit Mr Schultz’s stables on 31 August 2020 at which time he was directed to have a vet attend the filly. Sadly, the filly was euthanised on 3 September 2020.
Following a Stewards’ inquiry on 9 September 2020, Mr Schultz was found guilty of a breach of Australian Rules of Racing (‘the Rules’) AR231(1)(b) and his licence suspended for 12 months. The relevant AR231(1)(b) provides that a person in charge of a horse must not fail at any time to provide veterinary treatment to the horse where such treatment is necessary for the horse.
Mr Schultz applied to the Commission for an…

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 Schultz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission 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: [2022] QCAT 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schultz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved an application by Denis Schultz, a licensed trainer of thoroughbred horses, to review a decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) that confirmed a decision of the Stewards that Schultz breached the Australian Rules of Racing (AR231(1)(b)) and imposed a penalty of suspension of his licence for 12 months. Schultz applied for review of the QRIC decision on the basis that the charge was not substantiated. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Rules of Racing applied to the present matter and whether the charges were proven. The Tribunal found that the Rules applied to Schultz as he was responsible for an eligible horse and a participant in racing. The Tribunal concluded that Schultz had taken reasonable steps to treat the filly’s injury, including administering a drug and arranging for a veterinarian to examine the filly. The Tribunal set aside the QRIC decision and substituted a decision that the charge that Schultz breached AR231(1)(b)(iii) was not substantiated. The Tribunal ordered that the charge that Schultz breached AR231(1)(b)(iii) is not substantiated.

Orders