Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (costs) - [2024] QCAT 585

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (costs) [2024] QCAT 585

PARTIES:

KERROD SMYTH

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR175-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:

The application made by Kerrod Smyth for his costs in the review to be paid by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – trainer’s application to review a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that he had breached a racing rule – where the trainer was successful in having the finding of breach set aside – whether the Commission should pay the trainer’s legal costs in the review

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld)

Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v General Manager of Maritime Safety Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads and Ors (costs) [2022] QCAT 225
Commissioner of State Revenue v Telgrove Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QCATA 113
Health Ombudsman v du Toit [2024] QCA 235
Pound v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCAT 298
Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111
The Appeals of Adam Hyeronimus and Blake Paine heard by the Racing Appeal Panel of NSW

Wolfgram v Racing Queensland [2012] QCAT 44

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Kerrod Smyth applied to the tribunal for a review of a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that he had breached the Australian Rules of Racing AR 236, concerning betting with or for a jockey. In the review, the member decided that the correct and preferable decision was that Mr Smyth had not breached the rule and so the decision was set aside.[1] Mr Smyth now applies for an order that the QRIC pay his legal costs incurred in the review.
[1]A decision published as Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 242.
Action was taken against Mr Smyth under the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). Under that Act the QRIC was established (amongst other things) to ensure the integrity of all persons involved with racing or betting under that Act or the Racing Act.[2] The QIRC has a statutory function (amongst other things) to license participants that are suitable to be licensed for a code of racing, to conduct investigations into breaches of the Act or the Racing Act (under which the rules of racing are established), to make decisions about disciplinary matters, to prevent noncompliance and lapses in integrity, as far as practicable, in the racing industry, and to make all necessary inquiries it believes necessary to fulfil these functions.[3]
[2]Section 3(1)(b).
[3]Section 10.
The Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 provides:

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 Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (costs) 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: [2024] QCAT 585
Decision Date: 12 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kerrod Smyth, an individual involved in horse racing, contested a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, which found that he had contravened a racing rule. The dispute reached the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where Smyth sought a review of the Commission's decision and applied for the costs of the review to be borne by the Commission. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Commission should be liable for Smyth's legal expenses given that the finding of breach was ultimately set aside.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, in light of the successful outcome for Smyth in having the finding of breach overturned, the Commission should be ordered to pay Smyth's legal costs associated with the review. This involved an examination of the relevant statutory provisions governing costs in such administrative reviews and the principles that guide the allocation of costs in successful proceedings.

The Tribunal deliberated on the statutory framework and the principles of administrative law that govern costs in tribunal proceedings. It considered the nature of the review process and the outcome of the review, which favoured Smyth. Despite Smyth's success in having the finding of breach set aside, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances did not warrant an order for the Commission to pay Smyth's costs. The decision was based on the tribunal's assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of imposing such costs on the Commission, taking into account the broader context of the administrative review process.

The Tribunal refused Smyth's application for the Commission to pay his costs in the review, reflecting a balanced consideration of the statutory provisions, the outcome of the review, and the principles of administrative law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application made by Kerrod Smyth for his costs in the review to be paid by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is refused.

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.