Legal Research
Cases
Yole and Ors v Tasracing Pty Ltd

Yole and Ors v Tasracing Pty Ltd

Case [2024] TASSC 17 12 April 2024

Type to search within this case.

[2024] TASSC 17

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Yole and Ors v Tasracing Pty Ltd [2024] TASSC 17
PARTIES:	YOLE, Benjamin
YOLE, Tim
FORD, Nathan
FORD, Mitchell
v
TASRACING PTY LTD
FILE NO:	567/2024
DELIVERED ON:	12 April 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Administrative law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Jurisdictional matters – Power of statutory racing authority to issue warning-off notice – Jurisdiction not limited by text, context or purpose of legislation.

Racing Regulation Act 2004, s 54(2) Aust Dig Administrative Law [1029]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicants: D Sheales, T Purdey
Respondent: M O'Farrell SC

Solicitors:

Applicants: Dobson Mitchell and Allport
Respondent: Murdoch Clarke

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 17
Number of paragraphs:	51

Serial No 17/2024 File No 567/2024

BENJAMIN YOLE, TIM YOLE, NATHAN FORD and MITCHELL FORD

v TASRACING PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
12 April 2024

1 The applicants are licensed persons in harness racing. By letter dated 20 February 2024 lawyers for the respondent, Tasracing Pty Ltd (Tasracing), gave notice to each applicant that Tasracing intended to issue a notice under the Racing Regulation Act 2004 (the RR Act), s 54(2)(a), called a warning-off notice, directing the recipient not to enter any of the seven Tasmanian racecourses controlled by Tasracing from 1 March 2024 for a period of 28 days. The letter invited the applicants to "show cause as to why our client ought not make that decision" and sought submissions by 5.00 pm on 27 February 2024. By further letter dated 27 February 2024 the lawyers for Tasracing forwarded drafts of the proposed notice in each case and extended the time for submissions to 3.00 pm on 29 February 2024.
2 On 1 March 2024 I made orders restraining the issue of the warning-off notices which accompanied the letters of 27 February 2024 until further order and a general order to show cause why the issue of the notices should not be restrained. The applicants' originating application sought relief in the nature of prohibition, in substance an injunction to restrain Tasracing from acting in excess of jurisdiction[1]. The principal issue for determination is whether the issue of the notices is, in the circumstances of this case, within the jurisdiction of Tasracing. The proposed notices are based on allegations that, in various ways, the applicants breached the Australian Harness Racing Rules and that "their continued attendance at any racecourse controlled by Tasracing has a real and substantial likelihood of damaging the integrity and reputation of the Tasmanian racing industry."
[1] Supreme Court Rules 2000, r 627(2)(c), Tasman Quest Pty Ltd v Evans (2003) 13 Tas R 16
3 By s 54(2) of the RR Act, Tasracing has express power to issue a warning-off notice. However the substance of the applicants' contentions is that suspected breaches of the rules or allegations founded on "issues of integrity" are matters which fall within the jurisdiction of…

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.

Continue reading Yole and Ors v Tasracing Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Yole and Ors v Tasracing Pty Ltd [2024] TASSC 17
Case: [2024] TASSC 17
Decision Date: 12 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Yole and others, sought judicial review of a decision by Tasracing Pty Ltd, a statutory racing authority, to issue a warning-off notice. The court was asked to determine whether the statutory authority had the power to issue such a notice under the relevant legislation and whether the court had jurisdiction to review that decision.

The central legal issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the statutory authority to issue a warning-off notice. The applicants argued that the court's jurisdiction was limited by the text, context, and purpose of the legislation, and that the statutory authority had acted beyond its powers. The respondents contended that the statutory authority had the power to issue the notice and that the court had jurisdiction to review the decision.

The court held that the statutory authority had the power to issue a warning-off notice, and that the court had jurisdiction to review that decision. The court found that the legislation did not limit the statutory authority's power to issue a warning-off notice, and that the court had jurisdiction to review the decision on the basis of jurisdictional error of law. The court rejected the applicants' argument that the court's jurisdiction was limited by the text, context, and purpose of the legislation.

The court's final order was that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and that the statutory authority's decision to issue a warning-off notice be upheld. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Orders