Wigg v Racing Integrity Board - [2023] NZHC 497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-769

[2023] NZHC 497

UNDER the Racing Industry Act 2020

IN THE MATTER

of a review of a decision of the Racing Integrity Broad dated 10 May 2022

BETWEEN

SHERYL LOUISE WIGG

Applicant

AND

RACING INTEGRITY BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: 15 August 2022

Appearances:

P J Dale KC for Applicant

B H Dickey and D B Dow for Respondent

Judgment:

14 March 2023

REASONS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 14 March 2023 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors: KooTelle Lawyers, Auckland

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel: P J Dale KC, Auckland

WIGG v RACING INTEGRITY BOARD [2023] NZHC 497 [14 March 2023]

[1] I issued a results judgment in this matter on 28 February 2023.1 These are my reasons.

Introduction

[2] The applicant, Ms Sheryl Wigg, seeks judicial review of the exercise of a statutory power of the respondent, the Racing Integrity Board (“RIB”). In particular, the applicant seeks review of a decision by the RIB’s Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) to uphold a decision disqualifying the applicant from holding or obtaining a licence under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing (“rules of harness racing”) for 19 months. The applicant was also ordered to pay costs of $10,000, being $6,000 to the RIB in its capacity as informant, and $4,000 in its capacity as adjudicator.

[3] The applicant brought her application for review on two grounds. The first, which was pressed with the greatest force, is that of procedural impropriety. The second is that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the Tribunal was disproportionately severe. As it turns out, I am satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first.

[4] I record also that Mr Dale KC, for the applicant, did not pursue two further pleaded grounds of review, being a failure to grant a rehearing and an alleged breach of natural justice.

Background

[5] The RIB was established by the Racing Industry Act 2020 (“the Act”), as the successor body to the Racing Integrity Unit (“RIU”) and the Judicial Control Authority (“JCA”).2

[6] The RIB is responsible for administering three codes of racing: thoroughbred racing, harness racing, and greyhound racing. Its functions include ensuring compliance with each code’s rules of racing, and adjudication in respect of alleged

1 Wigg v Racing Integrity Board [2023] NZHC 353.
2 Racing Industry Act 2020, s 42.

breaches of those rules. These functions were previously carried out by the RIU and the JCA respectively.

[7] Because it is relevant to what follows, insofar as concerns adjudication, the RIB is required to appoint Adjudicative Committees to “hear and adjudicate on any matters … in accordance with racing rules and to impose penalties…in accordance with those rules”. The RIB is also required “to appoint appeals tribunals to hear and adjudicate on appeals (including penalties…

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 Wigg v 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: [2023] NZHC 497
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ms Sheryl Wigg, sought judicial review of a decision by the Racing Integrity Board’s Appeals Tribunal to uphold a decision disqualifying her from holding or obtaining a licence under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing for 19 months. The applicant also sought review of the Tribunal’s decision to order her to pay costs of $10,000. The applicant’s application was brought on two grounds, being procedural impropriety and the disproportionate severity of the penalty imposed. The Court was satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first. The Court found that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the Tribunal was unreasonable, in that it was vastly more severe than that imposed in comparable cases. The Court was unable to reconcile the penalty imposed on the applicant with the penalties imposed on the other respondents referred to in the judgment. In the circumstances, the Court remitted the matter back to the Racing Integrity Board for reconsideration. The parties may make submissions on costs in the absence of agreement.

Orders