Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited - [2012] QCAT 241

CITATION:

Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 241

PARTIES:	Arthur Seymour (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Limited (Responndent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR145-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Michael Howe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of Racing Queensland made on 10 February 2012 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – Gear Register – carelessness or neglect in fitting gear – test for duty of care – statutory basis of Rules of Racing – breach of the rules of sport – Rule 140A – serious consequences of breach of rules – considerations of penalty

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 150
Racing Act 2002, ss 3, 20, 78(1)(a) and (2)(b), 79
Racing Queensland Limited Local Rules (All Codes), rule 1(2)

Clements v Racing Victoria Ltd (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2010] VCAT 1144
John Zucal & Ors v Harper [2005] WASCA 76
Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119
Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383
Kliese v Pellling [1998] QSC 112
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
El-Issa v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCATA 280

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:Mr Seymour was represented by Mr Glynn SC of counsel
RESPONDENT: Racing Queensland was represented by Mr Murdock SC of counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Oliver, Senior Member

In this matter the Tribunal consisted of Mr Howe, QCAT Member and me. I have had the benefit of reading his reasons in draft. I agree with his reasons, and his conclusions, and the order he proposes.

Mr Howe, Member

Background

On 12 November, 2011 the Julia Creek Turf Club hosted a 5 card race meeting. After the meeting two horses participated in a trackwork gallop, Under Construction ridden by jockey Corey Gilby and Slippery Position ridden by jockey Terrence Hill.
The riders took their horses out and trotted around together. Slippery Position was on the outside. They commenced working the horses from 1,400m out and approaching the 600m mark stayed together in a controlled gallop. Under Construction was 2 to 4m off the rail and there was another half to a full horse width between them.
Slippery Position was probably slightly ahead going past the post. Some short distance after the post Under Construction fell, abruptly. The horse appeared to somersault and Corey Gilby was thrown heavily on to the track sustaining serious injuries. He subsequently died from those injuries.
Mr Seymour was the owner and licensed trainer of Under Construction. He had bandaged all of Under Construction’s legs prior to the gallop. On 15 February 2012 a panel of Stewards enquiring into the circumstances of the fall and the dislodging of the rider found Mr Seymour guilty of breaching Australian Rules of Racing in that he was neglectful in presenting his horse for trackwork without appropriately secured bandages.

The Charges

Mr Seymour was charged pursuant…

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 Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited 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 241
Decision Date: 18 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited involved a dispute between a horse trainer and Racing Queensland Limited, the regulatory body for horse racing in Queensland. The dispute arose from an incident where the plaintiff’s horse suffered injury during a race, allegedly due to defective gear. Seymour sought damages from Racing Queensland, claiming that their negligence in ensuring the proper fitting of the horse's gear led to the injury. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, where the primary legal issues were whether Racing Queensland owed a duty of care to Seymour and, if so, whether that duty was breached.

The court considered the statutory framework governing the Rules of Racing and the extent to which these rules imposed a duty of care. It was necessary to determine whether Racing Queensland's oversight of the fitting of gear constituted a breach of any duty of care owed to Seymour. The court also examined the potential implications of a breach of the Rules of Racing, particularly under Rule 140A, which deals with serious consequences of rule breaches. The court found that Racing Queensland's oversight role did not create a duty of care to individual participants such as Seymour, and that any breach of the Rules of Racing did not result in Racing Queensland being liable for damages.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Racing Queensland’s decision not to hold them liable for the injury was correct. The court held that Racing Queensland did not owe a duty of care to Seymour and, even if it did, there was no breach of that duty. The court also noted that the Rules of Racing, while binding on participants, did not impose a tortious duty on Racing Queensland towards individual participants. Consequently, the decision of Racing Queensland made on 10 February 2012 was confirmed, and Seymour’s claim was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of Racing Queensland made on 10 February 2012 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.