Webber v Racing NSW

Case [2018] NSWCATAD 44

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Webber v Racing NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 44
Hearing dates: 9 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: R C Titterton, Principal Member
Decision:

(1)   The respondent’s application to stay or adjourn the proceedings is refused.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay pending determination of proceedings in the Supreme Court – principles to be applied
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Industrial Relations Act 1996
Supreme Court Act 1970
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australia National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bentran Pty Ltd v Sabbarton [2014] NSWCATAP 37
CHI v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 151
Complete Wardrobes & Showerscreens Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWADT 67
Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492
L & W Developments Pty Limited v Della [2003] NSWCA 140
Meggitt Overseas Ltd v Grdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527;
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449; (1992) 67 ALJR 170; [1992] HCA 66
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1998) 165 CLR 197
Rochfort v John Fairfax & Sons [1972] 1 NSWLR 16
Sogelease v Griffin [2002] NSWSC 1099
St George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner for State Revenue [2014] NSWCATAD 134
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited v The Boots Company Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287
The Environmental Group Ltd v Croudace unreported, 7 August 1998
The Owners-Strata Plan No. 51487 v Broadsand Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 813
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538
Wang v Dental Council of NSW [2016] NSWCATOD 90
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Pam Webber (Applicant)
Racing NSW (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
V Heath (Applicant)
J McLeod (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00322630

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. By application dated 25 January 2018, the respondent seeks that the proceedings be stayed pending determination of Supreme Court proceedings 2016/362162, or until further order of the Tribunal. In the alternative, the respondent seeks an order that the proceedings be adjourned until a date convenient to the Tribunal in June 2018.

  2. The application is opposed by Ms Webber, who seeks further orders for the management of the matter.

  3. For the following reasons, the respondent’s application is refused.

These proceedings

  1. The applicant has been a professional trainer of thoroughbred horses since 1979. She was licensed to do so continuously from 1994 to 1 September 2016.

  2. The applicant sustained injuries in the course of her work as a trainer in the period April 2002 to 2 October 2012, in particular injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, which have required surgeries and caused periods of temporary total disability and permanent partial physical disability for heavy work.

  3. On 15 February 2016, the applicant was kicked by a horse causing her acute aggravation of her previous lumbar…

Continue reading Webber v Racing NSW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Webber v Racing NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 44
Case
[2018] NSWCATAD 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webber v Racing NSW was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the plaintiff, Webber, seeking to challenge a decision made by the respondent, Racing NSW. The central issue in the case was the refusal by Racing NSW to grant Webber a licence to operate a greyhound racing club in New South Wales. Webber applied to the Court of Appeal to stay or adjourn the proceedings until the determination of proceedings in the Supreme Court. The appeal court was required to determine the appropriate principles to apply in deciding whether to grant a stay or adjournment in such circumstances.

The court examined the principles governing the grant of a stay or adjournment of proceedings in cases where there are related proceedings in another court. The court noted that the principles are well-established and involve a consideration of the balance of convenience, the existence of an arguable case, and the likelihood of substantial prejudice to the applicant if the stay or adjournment is not granted. The court further considered the need for finality in legal proceedings and the importance of avoiding piecemeal litigation. In applying these principles to the facts of the case, the court found that there was no compelling reason to grant a stay or adjournment of the proceedings, as the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a significant risk of substantial prejudice if the proceedings were to continue.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal refused the application for a stay or adjournment of the proceedings. The court held that the principles established in previous cases indicated that such an application should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay in legal proceedings and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court further noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a real prospect of success in the proceedings in the Supreme Court, which was a necessary consideration in determining whether to grant a stay or adjournment. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the proceedings in the Court of Appeal were allowed to continue.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondent’s application to stay or adjourn the proceedings 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.