Seymour v Racing Queensland Ltd - [2013] QCATA 179

CITATION:

Seymour v Racing Queensland Ltd [2013] QCATA 179

PARTIES:	Arthur Seymour (Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL229-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where the trainer was found to be careless or negligent in not stitching bandages – where the Panel of Stewards suspended the trainer’s licence – where the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Panel of Stewards – where the appellant’s grounds of appeal included questions of mixed law and fact and questions of law – where leave is required for questions of mixed law and fact – whether leave to appeal should be granted

APPEAL – where the trainer was found to be careless or negligent in not stitching bandages – where the Panel of Stewards suspended the trainer’s licence – where the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Panel of Stewards – where a ground of appeal was the Tribunal erred by misstating the test for rule 140A of the Australian Rules of Racing – whether the Tribunal applied the correct test

Australian Rules of Racing r 140A, r 140B
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3), s 142(3)(b), s 143(2), s 146, s 147(2), s 147(3)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, r 95
Racing Act 2002, s 79.

Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia [2010] QCA 352, cited
Brown v Repatriation Commission [1985] 60 ALR 289, cited
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited
Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119, cited
R v NM [2012] QCA 173, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 15 February 2012 a Panel of Stewards of Queensland Racing Limited found Mr Arthur Seymour, a licensed racehorse trainer, guilty of breaching AR 140A of the Australian Rules of Racing. After considering submissions on penalty made on Mr Seymour’s behalf, the Stewards suspended his trainer’s licence for a period of six months. The decision on penalty was notified to Mr Seymour by a letter from the Chairman of Stewards dated 10 April 2012.
Mr Seymour sought a review of the steward’s decision in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. By decision dated 18 June 2012 the Tribunal confirmed the decision of Queensland Racing.[1]
[1]Seymour v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 241; The decision and order of 18 June 2012 each refer to the decision of Queensland Racing made on 10 February 2012. This appears to be a typographical error. It should refer to the decision of 10 April 2012.
Mr Seymour had been charged with a…

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 Ltd 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: [2013] QCATA 179
Decision Date: 19 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seymour v Racing Queensland Ltd concerned the suspension of a trainer's licence by the Panel of Stewards and its subsequent confirmation by the Tribunal. The dispute arose from the Panel of Stewards' finding that the trainer had been careless or negligent in not stitching bandages, which led to the suspension of their licence. The Tribunal upheld the Panel of Stewards' decision, prompting the trainer to seek leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision. The grounds of appeal included questions of mixed law and fact, as well as questions of law, specifically whether the Tribunal misstated the test for rule 140A of the Australian Rules of Racing and whether it correctly applied the test.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was so palpably wrong as to justify the grant of leave to appeal. The court considered the grounds of appeal, which were primarily focused on whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the test for rule 140A of the Australian Rules of Racing. The trainer argued that the Tribunal did not correctly apply the test and therefore its decision should be overturned. The court weighed the importance of ensuring the proper administration of racing rules against the need for finality in such matters.

The court concluded that while the grounds of appeal raised significant issues, the Tribunal's decision was not so palpably wrong as to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The court found that the Tribunal had applied the correct test in accordance with the Australian Rules of Racing, and the trainer's arguments did not provide a compelling case for overturning the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal, confirming the Tribunal's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. Appeal dismissed.

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.