Wigg v Racing Integrity Board - [2022] NZHC 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-769

[2022] NZHC 1224

UNDER the Racing Industry Act 2020

IN THE MATTER

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

BETWEEN

SHERYL LOUISE WIGG

Applicant

AND

THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: 26 May 2022

Appearances:

P J Dale QC for Applicant D Dow for Respondent

Judgment:

30 May 2022

Reissued:

30 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: KooTelle Lawyers (E Telle), Auckland
Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland Counsel: P J Dale QC, Auckland

WIGG v THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD [2022] NZHC 1224 [30 May 2022]

[1] The applicant challenges decisions of an Adjudicative Committee dated 17 February 2022 and an Appeals Tribunal dated 10 May 2022. She does so by way of judicial review. The Adjudicative Committee had been set up by the Racing Integrity Board to hear charges against the applicant of administering a substance to three horses on race day. She pleaded guilty and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a trainer’s licence for 19 months. She was also ordered to pay $10,000 costs. She appealed to an Appeals Tribunal, also set up by the Racing Integrity Board. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal.

[2] By this interlocutory application, the applicant seeks a stay of execution of both the Adjudicative Committee and Appeals Tribunal decisions pending a substantive hearing of her judicial review. It is opposed by the Racing Integrity Board.

Factual background

[3] The applicant is a licensed harness racing trainer and as such is subject to the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. The respondent Racing Integrity Board (RIB) is established by s 42 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 (the Act). Its functions include the appointment of adjudicative committees to hear and adjudicate on any matters (whether arising on a particular day of racing or otherwise) in accordance with racing rules and to impose penalties and award costs in accordance with those rules. It also appoints appeals tribunals to hear and adjudicate on appeals (including penalties imposed or costs awarded).

[4] The applicant faced three charges laid by the RIB. They alleged that on 16 July 2021 at Kumeu, the applicant administered a substance by way of oral syringe to three horses, which were entered in races at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park that evening, in breach of the New Zealand Harness Racing Rule 1004C(1)(b). The substance administered was found to be a paste containing a mixture of curcumin, which is present in turmeric, and piperine, an alkaloid found in black pepper. Curcumin and piperine are not prohibited substances, but curcumin has been reported, although not verified by peer reviewed science, to have anti- inflammatory properties. The Adjudicative Committee thought it may well be the…

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: [2022] NZHC 1224
Decision Date: 30 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wigg sought judicial review of decisions of the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) disqualifying her from holding or obtaining a trainer’s licence for 19 months. Wigg pleaded guilty to charges that she administered a substance to three horses on race day. The RIB had appointed an Adjudicative Committee to hear charges against Wigg of administering a substance to three horses on race day. The Adjudicative Committee found Wigg guilty and imposed a sentence of 19 months’ disqualification. Wigg appealed to an Appeals Tribunal, also set up by the RIB, which dismissed her appeal. Wigg sought a stay of execution of both the Adjudicative Committee and Appeals Tribunal decisions pending a substantive hearing of her judicial review. The court found that there was no suggestion that Wigg would reoffend if able to continue training for a limited period prior to the substantive hearing. The RIB would not be disadvantaged if the applicant’s financial, personal and health issues were now seen as favouring the stay until the novel and important issues she raised were dealt with in the High Court. There was some limited public interest as the use of penalty guidelines and the validity and composition of appeals tribunals may affect other cases. The application certainly involved issues of novelty. The overall balance of convenience favoured a stay of execution. There would be an order suspending the determinations of the Adjudicative Committee, dated 17 February 2022, and the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, dated 10 May 2022, pending disposal of this proceeding. The application was set down for a substantive hearing on Monday, 15 August 2022, for one day. Timetable orders were made to ensure that the application was ready for hearing on that date.

Orders