Webber v Racing New South Wales - [2017] NSWSC 687

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Webber v Racing New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 687
Hearing dates: 26 May 2017
Date of orders: 26 May 2017
Decision date: 26 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1)   On or before 24 June 2017, the first defendant produce the material sought in the plaintiff's Notice to Produce issued to it dated 2 March 2017 save that:

   (a)   Paragraph 3 be amended to read:

      "All documents authored, caused to be created, or signed by Mr Peter V'Landys AM that refer to Pam Webber in the period 1 January 2014 to 13 September 2016 including file notes, emails, text messages, reports, memos, letters and statements other than approvals of distribution of prize money."

   (b)   By the deletion of the words:

      "until further order, the name and address of the trainer and identification of any company or individual referred to may be redacted if confidential"

      at the end of paragraph 5.

   (c)   Until further order, the first defendant may redact the name and address of any trainer or any company associated with any trainer in the material produced in answer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Notice.

   (d)   Until further order access to the material produced in answer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Notice be restricted to the plaintiff's counsel and instructing solicitors.

(2)   On or before 24 June 2017, the second defendant produce the material sought in answer to the plaintiff's Notice to Produce issued to him dated 2 March 2017, save that paragraph 2 be amended to read:

   "All documents authored, caused to be created, or signed by you that refer to Pam Webber in the period 1 January 2014 to 13 September 2016 including file notes, emails, text messages, reports, memos, letters and statements other than approvals of distribution of prize money.”

(3)   The costs of the defendant's Notice of Motion filed 19 May 2017 be costs in the cause.
(4)   The existing order that the defendants file affidavits by 1 June 2017 be vacated.
Catchwords: Judicial Review – notices to produce – discovery – plaintiff’s horse trainer licence not renewed – plaintiff seeks judicial review of non renewal and revocation – grounds of review include unreasonableness and improper purpose – allegation that decision maker motivated in part to punish plaintiff for pursuing workers compensation claim against first defendant – discovery sought of documents received by decision maker concerning that claim – material before decision maker discoverable even absent claim of improper purpose – discovery of material concerning other trainers whose licences are not renewed- discovery allowed.
Legislation Cited: Australian Rules of Racing, r 7(iii)(b)
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56
Local Rules of Racing, r 51(3)
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996, s 13, s 14
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 21.2, 59.7(3)
Cases Cited: Insurance Australia Ltd t/a NRMA Insurance v Milton (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 173
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24
Telstra Corporation v…

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: [2017] NSWSC 687
Decision Date: 26 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Webber v Racing New South Wales, the plaintiff, who is a horse trainer, sought judicial review of the decision by Racing New South Wales not to renew his licence, as well as the revocation of his licence. The plaintiff argued that the decision was unreasonable and made for an improper purpose, specifically that the decision-maker was motivated to punish the plaintiff for pursuing a workers compensation claim against the first defendant. The plaintiff requested discovery of documents that were received by the decision-maker concerning the workers compensation claim, as well as other documents that were received by the decision-maker concerning other trainers whose licences were not renewed.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to judicial review of the decision not to renew and revoke his licence, and if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to discovery of the requested documents. The court considered whether the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review and whether the decision-maker had considered irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant matters. The court also considered whether the discovery of the requested documents was necessary to determine the grounds of review and whether the decision-maker had acted unreasonably.

The court found that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review and that the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant matters. The court held that the material before the decision-maker was discoverable even absent a claim of improper purpose, as it was necessary to determine the grounds of review. The court also held that the discovery of material concerning other trainers whose licences were not renewed was allowed, as it was relevant to the decision-maker’s consideration of the plaintiff’s application. The court ordered Racing New South Wales to provide the plaintiff with access to the requested documents.

The final orders of the court included an order for Racing New South Wales to provide the plaintiff with access to the requested documents and an order for the case to be listed for further directions. The court also noted that the decision-maker was required to reconsider the plaintiff’s application for a horse trainer licence, taking into account the findings of the court.

Orders