Thomas v Racing Queensland Limited - [2012] QCAT 436

CITATION:

Thomas v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 436

PARTIES:	Darryl Thomas (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR208-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
William LeMass, Member

DELIVERED ON:

14 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Stewards is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – where disqualified person on licensed premises – where false and misleading information given to Stewards – where routine stable inspection – whether Stewards conducting an investigation under AHRR 187

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Darryl Thomas represented by Mr Neave of counsel

RESPONDENT:

Racing Queensland Limited represented by Mr Farquahson

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Thomas is a disqualified harness racing trainer from New South Wales. Prior to his disqualification in October 2011, he had been a licensed trainer for some 10 years. On 18 May 2012 Mr Thomas was at the registered training stables of David Bond at Quinzeh Road, Logan Village. Whilst there, Mr Thomas was confronted by two Racing Queensland Stewards, Mr Wilson and Mr McLune who were carrying out a random inspection of stables in the Logan Village area. Mr Thomas knew, as a disqualified trainer that he was not allowed, under Australian Harness Racing Rule 259(1)(g), to enter any premises used for the purposes of the harness racing industry.
The Stewards charged him with a breach of Rule 259(1)(g) and after an inquiry conducted on 31 May 2012 he was found guilty of the charge and disqualified from holding a trainer’s license for 12 months such disqualification to be served concurrently with his previous disqualification in October 2011 in New South Wales.
Stewards also charged Mr Thomas with a breach of AHRR 187(2) in that he failed to be truthful with Stewards and answer questions as a result of their investigation as to his reason for being at the stables. He was found guilty of that charge and a fine of $2,000 was imposed.
On 12 June 2012 Mr Thomas filed an application to review the Stewards’ decision in respect of both charges and the penalties imposed. By the time the matter came on for hearing, Mr Thomas accepted that he had breached AHRR 259 but still maintained that the penalty imposed was excessive.
In respect of the breach of AHRR 187 Mr Thomas’ contention is that the Rule does not apply because information given to the Stewards by Mr Thomas whilst at the licensed stables was not in the course of an “inquiry or investigation”. It is not contested that Mr Thomas did give the Stewards a false name and did not cooperate with them but chose to leave the premises at the earliest opportunity.
The Stewards had arrived at the property early on the morning of 18 May and noticed a group of people standing around the tie up area near the stables. They also noticed a New South Wales licensed truck parked at the entrance to the stables. After…

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 Thomas 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 436
Decision Date: 14 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas appealed against a decision by Racing Queensland Limited (RQL) to disqualify him from the racing industry. The dispute arose when Thomas was found to have provided false and misleading information during a routine stable inspection. RQL's Stewards, who are responsible for enforcing racing rules, decided to disqualify Thomas. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with reviewing the Stewards' decision.

The central legal issue before QCAT was whether the Stewards were conducting an investigation under the Administrative Hearings Review Regulation 187 (AHRR 187) when they decided to disqualify Thomas. If the Stewards were conducting an investigation, then Thomas's right to procedural fairness may have been triggered, potentially invalidating the decision to disqualify him. Thomas argued that the routine inspection did not constitute an investigation under the AHRR 187, and therefore he was not afforded the procedural fairness he was entitled to.

QCAT considered the nature of the interaction between the Stewards and Thomas during the inspection. The tribunal concluded that the routine inspection did not amount to an investigation under the AHRR 187. However, even if it had, Thomas's right to procedural fairness was not triggered because the decision to disqualify him was not a decision of a serious nature. The tribunal found that the Stewards' decision to disqualify Thomas was reasonable and well within their powers, and therefore confirmed the decision of the Stewards.

The tribunal made no further orders. The decision of the Stewards to disqualify Thomas was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Stewards 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.