Harris v The Racing Integrity Board - [2024] NZHC 914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-307

[2024] NZHC 914

BETWEEN
PAUL DAVID JOSEPH HARRIS

Applicant

AND

THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

S M Grieve KC and S J Bird for Applicant B H Dickey and D B Dow for Respondent

Judgment:

24 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

(Re: Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2024 at 11 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HARRIS v THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD [2024] NZHC 914 [24 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 24 November 2023 I issued a decision on an application for judicial review challenging various steps taken by The Racing Integrity Board (the Board) in proceedings instituted against the applicant, Mr Paul Harris, and another person.1 The applicant was successful in part.

[2] I reserved the issue of costs, though indicated my preliminary view was that costs should lie where they fall. An application for costs has now been made and is determined in this judgment.

Background

[3] On 12 October 2021, on the advice of two vets, a five-year-old bay mare named Riverfalls was euthanised.

[4] On 8 December 2021, the Board instituted proceedings against the applicant, a Canterbury-based horse trainer, and a licenced stable hand employed by Mr Harris, in relation to Riverfalls’ death.

[5] The charge2 alleged that, between 6 June 2021 and 12 October 2021, Mr Harris and his employee committed a serious racing offence because they “failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of the horse ‘Riverfalls’ were met, resulting in that horse’s condition deteriorating to such state that it was required to be euthanised, an act detrimental to the interests of racing”.

[6] The Board convened an adjudicative committee (the Committee) to hear the charge.

[7] Prior to the hearing, counsel for Mr Harris requested further particulars of the charge. The Board declined to provide those. After closing arguments, the Committee issued a ruling amending the charge on its own motion to list seven particulars (the Ruling).

1 Harris v The Racing Integrity Board [2023] NZHC 3361.
2 Brought under r 801(1)(s)(i) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc Rules of Racing 2021.

[8] Mr Harris then appealed the Ruling. He contended the amendment after the case had finished irreparably prejudiced his defence.

[9] An appeals tribunal (the Tribunal) heard his appeal on the papers and dismissed it on 26 July 2022. Mr Harris then initiated proceedings for judicial review of the Ruling and the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his appeal. The Committee stayed its proceeding pending the outcome of the judicial review application.

[10]In my judgment granting the judicial review application in part, I concluded:3

[103] The decision to charge the applicant under r 801(1)(s)(i) [of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing 2021] is ultra vires. The charge does not identify a relevant act on which it can proceed.

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 Harris v The Racing Integrity Board 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: [2024] NZHC 914
Decision Date: 24 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Paul David Joseph Harris applied for judicial review against The Racing Integrity Board, which had instituted proceedings against him related to the death of a horse. The Board instituted proceedings against Mr Harris and a stable hand, alleging that they failed to meet the horse's health needs, leading to its death. The Board amended the charge before the adjudicative committee, which led to an appeal and subsequent judicial review by Mr Harris. The Court found that the original charge was ultra vires, but allowed for the charge to be amended if the substance remained the same. The Court reserved the issue of costs, indicating that its preliminary view was that costs should lie where they fall.

The central legal issue was whether the costs of the judicial review proceedings should lie with the applicant or the Board, given the mixed success of both parties. The Court considered the principles of costs in judicial review proceedings and the relative success of each party on issues that were of importance to them. The applicant argued that he was substantially successful overall, as the Court found the original charge was ultra vires and the Board conceded that it could not call further evidence after amending the charge. However, the Board argued that costs should lie where they fall due to the mixed success of both parties.

The Court concluded that both parties had success on issues that were of importance to them, and that this was not a case where damages were sought and the party held liable to the other could be considered the successful party. The Court held that in the interests of justice, this was a case where costs should lie where they fall.

The Court ordered that costs on the judicial review proceedings were to lie where they fall.

Orders