Sydney Turf Club v Crowley - [1972] HCA 25

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Owen, Walsh and Stephen JJ. (THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OWEN died before the delivery of judgment in this case.)

SYDNEY TURF CLUB v. CROWLEY

(1972) 126 CLR 420

10 April 1972

Insurance

Insurance—Double insurance—Payment by first insurer with denial of liability—Action by first insurer in name of insured to recover indemnity on second policy—Subrogation or contribution—Sydney Turf Club Act, 1943-1955 (N.S.W.), s. 11 (1) (c)—Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 (N.S.W.), as amended, s. 6 (10).

Decisions

April 10.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. The appellant, the Sydney Turf Club, was incorporated by the Sydney Turf Club Act, 1943-1955 (N.S.W.). By s. 11 (1) (c) of that Act it was required, amongst other things, to insure with the Government Insurance Office:

". . . against claims for compensation against it under any Workers' Compensation Act for the time being in force by any employee of the Club other than an employee who is a worker of the nature referred to in subsection ten of section six of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1942."

At all material times the appellant was a racing club within the operation of s. 6 (10) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 (N.S.W.), as amended. (at p422)

2. On 2nd August 1945 the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (the Insurance Office) issued to the appellant a policy of indemnity styled a public liability insurance policy, by which the Insurance Office undertook to indemnify the appellant against certain specified legal liabilities. The policy was varied from time to time by mutual consent of the parties to it and at the time relevant to this appeal provided that the Insurance Office should pay to or on behalf of the appellant "all sums for which" it should "become legally liable by way of damages in respect of accidental death of or accidental bodily injury to any person . . .", where during the continuance of the policy, such death or bodily injury is caused - "(a) In the course of carrying on the Insured's business" of a racing club ". . . upon . . . Canterbury Park Racecourse . . . by the negligence of the Insured or of any person for whose negligence the Insured is responsible", except that the Insurance Office should not be liable for, amongst other things, claims "in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of or in the course of the employment of such person in the service of the Insured". (at p423)

3. Section 6 (10) of the Workers' Compensation Act provides, in part:

"6. (10) A person engaged to ride or drive for fee or reward in any horse or pony race run under the management of any racing club or association or engaged, whether for fee or reward or gratuitously, in riding work on the racecourse or other premises of any such body, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be…

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 Sydney Turf Club v Crowley 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: [1972] HCA 25
Decision Date: 10 April 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Sydney Turf Club (STC) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of Mr Crowley. The dispute concerned the STC's refusal to grant Mr Crowley a licence to train racehorses at its premises, which Mr Crowley alleged was a breach of contract and an unlawful restraint of trade.

The High Court was required to determine whether the STC's refusal to grant Mr Crowley a licence constituted a breach of contract, and if so, whether such a restraint of trade was reasonable and therefore enforceable. The court also considered the nature of the STC's power to grant or refuse licences and the extent to which its discretion was fettered by contractual obligations or public policy considerations.

The High Court held that the STC's rules, which governed the granting of licences, did not create a contractual right for Mr Crowley to be granted a licence. The court found that the STC retained a discretion to refuse a licence, provided that discretion was exercised bona fide and for reasons related to the proper conduct of racing. As there was no contractual breach, the restraint of trade issue did not arise. The court emphasised that the STC's powers were for the regulation of racing and not for the purpose of restricting competition in the training of horses.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was set aside.

Orders