Webber v Racing New South Wales - [2019] NSWSC 46

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Webber v Racing New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 46
Hearing dates: 16, 17, 18 April 2018
Decision date: 06 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Declaration made that the decision of the defendants given 1 September 2016 refusing to renew the plaintiff’s trainer’s licence for the period expiring 30 June 2017 was invalid.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – grounds of review – decision by Racing NSW refusing to renew a trainer’s licence to an experienced thoroughbred trainer – review of licence renewal application prompted by concerns stemming from workers compensation proceedings against the same entity as authorised workers compensation insurer – failure to disclose internal material adverse to plaintiff including material concerning workers compensation claims – late concession by decision-maker that the decision entailed denial of procedural fairness – whether necessary or appropriate to determine remaining grounds of review – where decision no longer operative at time of hearing – utility of relief sought – discretion to grant declaratory relief – impact of decision on plaintiff’s reputation and future applications for a trainer’s licence
Legislation Cited: Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983 (NSW), s 5
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW), ss 4, 14(2)(b), 14AA, 24(1), 45
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 59.7, 59.9, 17.7
Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342; [1982] HCA 26
Perder Investments Pty Ltd v Elmer (1991) 31 FCR 201
Racing NSW v Lewin [2018] NSWCA 93
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57
Webber v Racing New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 687
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Pam Anne Marie Webber (plaintiff)
Racing NSW (first defendant)
Peter N V’landys (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Heath (plaintiff)
P Braham SC, J McLeod (defendants)
Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (plaintiff)
Racing NSW (defendants)

File Number(s): 2016/362162
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Ms Pam Webber is a professional horse trainer with over 35 years’ experience training thoroughbreds. Until the events giving rise to these proceedings, she had been continually licensed as a trainer in New South Wales since 1994 trading through a company, aptly named “Fasteedious Pty Ltd”.
Racing NSW is a body corporate established by s 4 of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW). Mr Peter V’landys, the second defendant, is its Chief Executive Officer. Mr V’landys is also the Secretary of both the Appeal Panel constituted under s 45 of the Thoroughbred Racing Act and the Racing Appeals Tribunal (Thoroughbred Racing Appeals) constituted under s 5 of the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983 (NSW).
On 1 September 2016, Racing NSW or Mr V’landys as its delegate made a decision not to renew Ms Webber’s trainer’s licence for the period ending 30 June 2017. By these proceedings, Ms Webber seeks judicial review of that decision. The summons also seeks review of two further decisions refusing to accept…

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 Webber v Racing New South Wales 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: [2019] NSWSC 46
Decision Date: 06 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Webber v Racing New South Wales, the plaintiff, an experienced thoroughbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by Racing New South Wales to refuse the renewal of his licence. The refusal was prompted by concerns arising from workers compensation proceedings against the same entity as the authorised workers compensation insurer. The plaintiff alleged that Racing New South Wales failed to disclose internal material adverse to him, including information concerning the workers compensation claims, and that the decision-maker conceded late in the proceedings that the decision entailed a denial of procedural fairness. The court had to determine whether it was necessary or appropriate to proceed with the remaining grounds of review, considering that the decision was no longer operative at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the court had to consider the utility of the relief sought, the discretion to grant declaratory relief, and the impact of the decision on the plaintiff's reputation and future applications for a trainer's licence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to proceed with the remaining grounds of review, given the late concession of procedural unfairness, and whether the decision was no longer operative. The court had to balance the need for finality against the importance of ensuring that administrative decisions are made fairly and in accordance with the law. The court also had to consider the utility of the relief sought and whether it was appropriate to grant declaratory relief, which would not affect the plaintiff's current situation but could have implications for his future applications for a trainer's licence.

The court held that it was not appropriate to proceed with the remaining grounds of review because the decision was no longer operative. The court found that the concession of procedural unfairness came too late and that there was no utility in proceeding with the review, as the decision was no longer in effect. The court also considered the discretion to grant declaratory relief but ultimately decided against it, as there was no significant benefit to the plaintiff. The court emphasised the importance of finality in administrative law and the need to balance the interests of the parties involved.

The court made no orders regarding the substantive merits of the decision to refuse the renewal of the plaintiff's licence, as the decision was no longer operative. The court also did not grant declaratory relief, as it was not considered appropriate in the circumstances. The court's decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making and the need to ensure that administrative processes are conducted in a manner that is just and equitable.

Orders