Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCATA
  3. 2015
  4. Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott - [2015] QCATA 92

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott[2015] QCATA 92

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott[2015] QCATA 92

CITATION:

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott [2015] QCATA 92

PARTIES:

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board

(Applicant/Appellant)

v

Justin Abbott

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL552 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane 

DECISION OF:

Justice Thomas, President

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – RACING – HARNESS RACING – Australian Harness Racing Rules – where racing trainer laid off – where trainer made comments to investigating stewards resulted on charge of intimidatory behaviour  – where significant penalty applied  by Stewards – where Disciplinary Board overturned Stewards’ decision on intimidatory behaviour – where Disciplinary Board reduced penalties from cumulative to concurrent – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Australian Harness Racing Rules ss 181, 187(5), 247, 257

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513

Hooper v Racing Queensland [2012] QCATA 226

APPEARANCES:

 

APPLICANT:

D. Kent QC, A.C. Freeman with him, instructed by Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board

RESPONDENT:

J. Murdoch QC, S. Farrell with him, instructed by Gabriel Ruddy and Garrett Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 10 March 2014, Foldem was the odds on favourite in race 6 at Albion Park. Justin Abbott was Foldem’s registered trainer. Foldem was supposed to run with block eyes but, instead, ran with an open bridle. The Stewards had not approved this change of gear. Disappointingly, Foldem did not win.
  2. [2]
    Foldem ran again a week later. This time Foldem wore a hood without the Stewards’ approval. It won, at reasonable odds.
  3. [3]
    The Stewards conducted an inquiry into Foldem’s performance. They discovered that Mr Abbott had laid Foldem for the 10 March race; that is, Mr Abbott bet that Foldem would not win that race. They discovered that Mr Abbott had backed Foldem to win the second race. The Stewards also discovered that Mr Abbott had laid two other horses that he trained, picking up money both times.
  4. [4]
    As part of the inquiry, three Stewards visited Mr Abbott. Mr Abbott admitted he laid Foldem and the other horses. At the end of the visit, Mr Abbott made some comments to the Stewards that they interpreted as intimidatory and an attempt to influence the result of the investigation.
  5. [5]
    The Stewards brought eight charges against Mr Abbott. One charge related to failing to notify Stewards of an intention to adopt different race tactics. Two charges related to unauthorised gear changes. Three charges related to laying bets. Two charges related to Mr Abbott’s comments to the Stewards.
  6. [6]
    Mr Abbott pleaded guilty to one charge of unauthorised gear change and three charges of laying bets. He did not plead guilty to the two charges that related to his comments. The Stewards found Mr Abbott guilty on all charges. The cumulative effect of the penalties imposed meant that Mr Abbott was disqualified from racing for five years.
  7. [7]
    Mr Abbott appealed to the Racing Disciplinary Board.  The Disciplinary Board confirmed convictions on five of the charges. The Disciplinary Board found Mr Abbott not guilty on the charges relating to Mr Abbott’s comments to the Stewards. The Disciplinary Board reduced Mr Abbott’s penalty to fines and a series of disqualifications to be served concurrently, which amounted to a two year disqualification.
  8. [8]
    The Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board, which has the conduct of the racing industry, wants to appeal the Disciplinary Board’s decision. It can only appeal on a question of law. It submits that the Disciplinary Board erred in its interpretation of Rule 247 of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (Racing Rules). It submits the Disciplinary Board improperly exercised its discretion in reducing the penalty because it incorrectly applied Rule 257 of the Racing Rules and it imposed a penalty that was manifestly inadequate. These questions must be considered within the context of the evidence before the Disciplinary Board.

What was the evidence before the Disciplinary Board?

  1. [9]
    The three Stewards who attended Mr Abbott’s house provided file notes. Norm Torpey’s file note recorded:[1]

…Mr Abbott acknowledged that he may have breached the rules in relation to the current investigation and would accept what he considered to be an appropriate penalty. However, he then advised that if he considered the penalty too excessive he would make it public knowledge that there was an RQ steward currently betting. When asked to elaborate on this claim Mr Abbott advised that he obtained photographic evidence of harness steward Cameron McLune placing bets …

Mr Abbott made the statement that he did not expect we would do anything about this information …

  1. [10]
    Mr Hackett’s file note recorded:[2]

As we were about to leave, Mr Abbott conceded he would be in trouble under the rules and indicated that if he was penalised harshly he would employ the services of a Sydney lawyer and bring up all he knew about stewards and the industry. When asked to explain what he meant by his statement about stewards, he mentioned about a steward betting

…

Mr Abbott said that  … he elected to get rid of the evidence… however as this issue has come about he mentioned it would be brought up in an appeal if treated harshly or penalised excessively.

  1. [11]
    Mr Farquharson’s file note recorded:[3]

Finally, as we were preparing to depart, Mr Abbott made some startling claims. He advised that if he was penalised too harshly for his alleged offences he would retain the services of a top Sydney lawyer and expose a matter that he knew of and RQ steward betting.

  1. [12]
    Mr Abbott gave direct evidence about that conversation. He denied he mentioned engaging a Sydney lawyer.[4] His version of events was:[5]

If I’m not given a consistent and fair hearing, and if it does go to appeal, I’ll bring up the fact you are too worried about my gambling and not what’s going on in your own backyard.

  1. [13]
    He denied saying he would bring up all he knew about stewards[6] and the industry but he did say:[7]

I just said about McLune (a steward), who’s sitting – who is going to sit in judgement of me and he bets himself. He’s broken the same rules that are in the same book …And I gave them the heads up that’s the way I have to fight it if I’m not treated fairly.

  1. [14]
    Finally, Mr Abbott said that he told Mr Farquharson: “ … time and time over again … that this is not a bribe or anything; this is the – I have to go down to save my life if I’m not treated fairly”.[8]

Did the Disciplinary Board err in its interpretation of Rule 247 of the Racing Rules?

  1. [15]
    Rule 247 states:

A person attending before the Controlling Body, its members or employees, the Stewards, officials or at any proceeding under these rules, shall not speak or behave in a malicious, intimidatory or otherwise improper manner.

  1. [16]
    It is common ground between the parties that the application of Rule 247 requires an objective test,[9] looking at all the evidence in context and taking into account all relevant circumstances. Context and the relevant circumstances can include the state of mind of both the offender and an observer or recipient. Queensland All Codes Racing submit that a party’s state of mind is of little weight when considering the application of the Rule.
  2. [17]
    We note that throughout the Stewards Inquiry, the Disciplinary Board hearing and this appeal, the allegation against Mr Abbott was that his behaviour was “intimidatory”.
  3. [18]
    Counsel for Mr Abbott submitted that Rule 247 can only apply to intimidatory conduct during a “proceeding” and could not apply to the events that happened when the Stewards visited Mr Abbott. The basis for this assertion was that the visit by the stewards was not a “hearing” or an “attendance” as contemplated by s 247.  It is submitted that the visit by the stewards was an “investigation” under Rule 181, which gives the Stewards investigative power and, as such, Rule 247 does not apply to such activity.
  4. [19]
    We do not agree with that interpretation. Rule 181 appears in Part 11 of the Rules, which is headed “INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS”. Rule 187(5), which appears in the same part, specifically states that a person shall not abuse, intimidate or be deliberately obstructive of the Stewards.
  5. [20]
    Rule 247 appears in Part 14, which deals with general offences, under the heading “Corruption and related matters”. It refers to a person attending before any proceedings under the Racing Rules or before the Controlling Body, its members or employees, the Stewards or officials. In our view, Rule 247 is intended to have wide ranging effect.
  6. [21]
    Queensland All Codes Racing has listed five different ways in which it says the Disciplinary Board erred in its interpretation of Rule 247. They are:
    1. a)
      The Disciplinary Board’s reference to the lack of an allegation amounted to an error in its application of Rule 247;
    2. b)
      The Disciplinary Board’s reference to Mr Abbott’s state of mind amounted to an error in its application of Rule 247;
    3. c)
      The evidence more properly supported a finding that Mr Abbott’s remarks were intimidatory;
    4. d)
      The Disciplinary Board erred in excluding Mr Abbott’s evidence that his comments were intended as “leverage”;
    5. e)
      The Disciplinary Board’s reference to a “grossly intimidatory” remark amounted to an error in its application of Rule 247;

Did the Disciplinary Board’s reference to the lack of an allegation amount to an error in its application of Rule 247?

  1. [22]
    In its decision, the Disciplinary Board noted that the Stewards’ statements did not record any allegation of intimidation or threats. The Disciplinary Board noted that Steward Farquharson’s statement included these words: “This admission was not recorded as it was a frank admission towards the conclusion of our visit.” It then found that Mr Abbott’s comments could not be deemed intimidatory.
  2. [23]
    Queensland All Codes Racing submits that there is clear statement of law in Hooper v Racing Queensland[10] that it is not necessary to prove intimidation in fact to establish a breach of the rule. That proposition is uncontroversial. Queensland All Codes Racing reasons that, if there is no need to prove the fact of intimidation, there is no need for the Stewards to record an allegation of intimidation.
  3. [24]
    That is correct. However, it does not follow that the Disciplinary Board misdirected itself. The appeal to the Disciplinary Board was by way of rehearing.[11] The Disciplinary Board reconsidered the evidence and formed its own view about whether the evidence established a breach of Rule 247. The Disciplinary Board’s reasons for decision canvass the evidence before the Stewards Inquiry. It decided that the evidence did not support a finding that Mr Abbott’s comments were intimidatory. One reading of the Disciplinary Board’s reasons is that the absence of an allegation is one of the factors to be taken into account when applying the objective test required by Hooper. It is straining the interpretation of the Disciplinary Board’s reasons to suggest any other meaning.
  4. [25]
    The Disciplinary Board’s reasons for decision could have been clearer, and better explained the basis of its findings, but that does not mean its decision was in error. Its reference to the absence of an allegation, without further explanation, does not show an error of law for which an appeal should be allowed.

Did the Disciplinary Board’s reference to Mr Abbott’s state of mind amount to an error in its application of Rule 247?

  1. [26]
    Queensland All Codes Racing submits that the Disciplinary Board considered Mr Abbott’s state of mind when deciding whether his statements were a breach of Rule 247, which is not consistent with the test in Hooper. It also submits that the Disciplinary Board erred in concluding that the Stewards were required to consider Mr Abbott’s state of mind in considering guilt. Queensland All Codes Racing submits there is a consequential error in the Disciplinary Board’s conclusion that the Stewards should have been aware that Mr Abbott was not attempting to intimidate the Stewards or the Stewards’ Inquiry.
  2. [27]
    The Disciplinary Board’s reasons state:

“Further, given the state of mind of [Mr Abbott] he, having assisted the enquiry, described his conduct as being stupid and the silliest thing he ever did believing that “If I’m given a penalty consistent with everyone else that has ever done this I’ll walk out the door and there is no appeal. But if Mr Hackett says …”Let’s give him five years’ and everyone else is getting one of six months then I have to appeal it…The appellant was merely stating the obvious namely that if he believed he would be treated unfairly, then he would undoubtedly be lodging an appeal and that was his right.”

…

Further, given the state of mind of [Mr Abbott], the stewards should have been aware that this was not an attempt to intimidate …

  1. [28]
    The Disciplinary Board then formed the view that the statement was not a threat or intimidation to compel the Stewards to grant a more lenient penalty.
  2. [29]
    The Stewards were not required to consider Mr Abbott’s state of mind in considering guilt. The comment that, given Mr Abbott’s state of mind, the Stewards should have been aware that he was not attempting to intimidate them seems to have been a factor taken into account by the Disciplinary Board in considering if, on an objective basis, taking all the factors into consideration, Mr Abbott spoke or behaved in an intimidating fashion.
  3. [30]
    The Disciplinary Board’s view of the evidence was that Mr Abbott was merely asserting his right to appeal if he was not happy with the penalty and so was not speaking in an intimidatory fashion. There does seem to have been a consideration on an objective basis taking into account all factors, including that Mr Abbott indicated he was prepared to accept a fair punishment for what he referred to as stupid conduct, and that any remarks Mr Abbott made to the Stewards were in response to the Stewards questioning. The Disciplinary Board’s reasons, in that respect, show a correct application of Rule 247.

Does the evidence more properly support a finding that Mr Abbott’s remarks were intimidatory?

  1. [31]
    Queensland All Codes Racing can only appeal to this appeals tribunal on an error of law. This ground of appeal is more properly an error of fact, although it might be argued that a conclusion that is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case[12] constitutes an error of law. At the hearing, Counsel for Queensland All Codes Racing submitted that it was not challenging factual findings, rather it was challenging the Disciplinary Board’s process. We will consider this ground of appeal on that basis.
  1. [32]
    Queensland All Codes Racing submits that the Disciplinary Board did not analyse the words Mr Abbott used. Counsel for Queensland All Codes Racing traversed the evidence, pointing out that Mr Abbott did not dispute the Stewards’ record of the conversation. In fact, Mr Abbott agreed with most of the Stewards’ record.[13] Queensland All Codes Racing submits that, if the words spoken are admitted, it must follow that the words were intimidatory.
  1. [33]
    As Mr Abbott observed, the consequences of the Stewards Inquiry and the appeal to the Disciplinary Board were potentially very serious. He faced losing his licence, and therefore his livelihood, for a substantial period. There had to be clear proof of the facts said to give rise to a breach of Rule 247 so that, on a balance of probabilities, there was an actual persuasion of the mind as to the charge.[14]
  1. [34]
    That high burden of proof is reflected in the Disciplinary Board’s decision. It noted that “such is the gravity of the charge and the resultant penalty, that compelling evidence placing the matter beyond a reasonable doubt, not just an irresistible inference of the alleged conduct, must be present and sustained”. Of course, even the highest standard of proof on the Briginshaw test does not require proof to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It does, however, require a very high standard of proof. The Disciplinary Board’s inexact use of terminology, while unfortunate, is not, in itself, a ground for appeal. It is clear that the Disciplinary Board understood the test, as it then stated that proving a breach of Rule 247 requires a “level of compelling evidence that just does not exist in this matter”.
  2. [35]
    As we observed at the outset, the objective test required by Rule 247 must be applied in context and in light of all the circumstances, including the state of mind of those involved. That was the task undertaken by the Disciplinary Board. We might have a different view of the evidence but that is not the test we must apply. The Disciplinary Board was not persuaded that Queensland All Codes Racing had discharged the very high burden of proof. It is not enough to assert on appeal to this tribunal that the evidence is more likely to support a view that Mr Abbott did breach Rule 247. The test must be that the Disciplinary Board’s findings were contrary to compelling inferences. We are not so persuaded.

Did the Disciplinary Board err in excluding Mr Abbott’s evidence that his comments were intended as “leverage”?

  1. [36]
    Queensland All Codes Racing relies on Mr Abbott’s use of the term “leverage” during the Steward’s inquiry to support a view that the only logical conclusion is that Mr Abbott did intend to intimidate or threaten the stewards. Queensland All Codes Racing takes issue with the Disciplinary Board’s finding that evidence about leverage was irrelevant.
  2. [37]
    We agree that anything said in the course of an inquiry or hearing can, and should, be considered. If the Disciplinary Board did exclude that evidence from its consideration, then it was in error. However, the Disciplinary Board referred to the evidence expressly, so it must have given it some consideration.
  3. [38]
    Even if the Disciplinary Board did not consider Mr Abbott’s comments about leverage, nothing turns on that error. The words must be considered in context.
  4. [39]
    Mr Abbott’s use of the word “leverage” arose in response to a question from the Chairman of the Inquiry, who asked Mr Abbott to identify an informant in Racing Queensland.[15] Mr Abbott replied: “No, no, because this was my leverage on Mr McLune when we go to QCAT”.[16] The Chairman noted that Mr McLune was not part of this hearing and said that it was best that they not speak further about that because the matter was being dealt with separately.[17] Mr Abbott pointed out that he didn’t bring it up but that the Chairman read it into the record.[18]
  5. [40]
    The Chairman then expressed his concern that Mr Abbott used the word and stated that “it’s akin to blackmail”.[19] The Chairman told Mr Abbott that the Disciplinary Board doesn’t bargain, doesn’t blackmail, and doesn’t respond to blackmail or bribery or anything of the sort. He told Mr Abbott that the Inquiry would be proceeding only on what was before them and anything said in relation to Mr McLune would not influence their decision.[20]
  6. [41]
    Mr Abbott sought reassurance that the Inquiry hadn’t been told what penalty it should apply[21] or that the Inquiry had made up its mind beforehand[22].
  7. [42]
    We agree that the reference to “leverage” was irrelevant to the Disciplinary Board’s determination.

Did the Disciplinary Board’s reference to a “grossly” intimidatory remark amount to an error in its application of Rule 247?

  1. [43]
    The Disciplinary Board’s comment could, perhaps, have been framed differently, but it must be viewed in context. The Disciplinary Board was considering whether the evidence met the very high evidentiary onus. It found that the evidence did not meet the onus. The character of the remark, in the context in which it was said, was either intimidatory or it was not and that was the question the Board considered. The use of the word “grossly” by the Disciplinary Board was descriptive and did not demonstrate an error and not used in the context that suggested the nature of the test required. For the reasons already expressed, we can find no compelling reason to disturb the Disciplinary Board’s findings that it was not intimidatory.

Did the Disciplinary Board impose the correct penalty?

Did the Disciplinary Board err in its application of Rule 257?

  1. [44]
    Rule 257 requires penalties to be served cumulatively unless directed otherwise. Queensland All Codes Racing submits the Disciplinary Board applied the wrong test by not starting from the position that Mr Abbott’s penalties would be served cumulatively.
  2. [45]
    Queensland All Codes Racing referred the Appeal Tribunal to this paragraph from the Disciplinary Board decision:

“The counsel for the stewards went to great lengths to propose that cumulative sentences are certainly an appropriate deterrent in circumstances such as where the issues are definitive and reflect a course that has been contrived to bring about differing results. This is not what has happened in our opinion and we do not believe there is anything to be gained by imposing cumulative sentences in circumstance where all of the salient features are very similar and were all offences committed in a short space of time” 

  1. [46]
    That paragraph appears in the middle of the Disciplinary Board’s analysis of penalty. In the preceding paragraph, the Disciplinary Board acknowledged the serious nature of the offences. It noted that there are circumstances where a significant long term disqualification might be imposed but it found that Mr Abbott’s case was not one of those cases. It considered the precedent cases submitted by Queensland All Codes Racing and distinguished them all.
  2. [47]
    In the following paragraph, the Disciplinary Board considered all the mitigating factors. It noted Mr Abbott’s guilty plea, his assistance to the proceeding, the modest sums of money involved and that there was no evidence the results were contrived.
  3. [48]
    We are satisfied that the reasons, when read as a whole, show that the Disciplinary Board started with the proposition that cumulative sentences are appropriate. It then considered whether there should be a different direction. The Disciplinary Board did decide that there should be a different direction and it gave reasons for doing so, being that the salient features of the offence were similar and the offences were committed in a very short space of time.

Was the penalty manifestly inadequate?

  1. [49]
    To disturb the Disciplinary Board’s findings would be to upset the exercise of its discretion. Just because the Appeal Tribunal might have exercised the discretion differently is not a basis for changing the decision; it must be shown that the decision is plainly unjust or unreasonable, and involved a clear misapplication of the discretion.[23]
  2. [50]
    Queensland All Codes Racing submits that there are five factors relevant in determining penalty:
    1. a)
      The amount of money won;
    2. b)
      The frequency of the conduct;
    3. c)
      Whether there was evidence Mr Abbott influenced others to bet;
    4. d)
      Whether there was evidence Mr Abbott planned to lay the horse or whether it was spontaneous;
    5. e)
      Whether there was evidence Mr Abbott negatively affected the horses’ chances of winning.
  3. [51]
    It is clear that the Disciplinary Board did consider the amount Mr Abbott won and the frequency of his conduct. There was no evidence before the Disciplinary Board that Mr Abbott influenced others to bet, planned to lay the horses or negatively affected the horses’ chances of winning. That might explain the Disciplinary Board’s statement: “There are circumstances where one can envisage significant long term disqualifications being imposed. … That is not the situation in the matters that are currently under review by this board.”  We can find no basis for an argument that the Disciplinary Board did not properly consider the relevant factors.
  4. [52]
    Queensland All Codes Racing submit that Mr Abbott’s situation was similar to that of Peter Robl and, therefore, the penalty should have been of similar proportion. Mr Robl was a jockey. He placed bets on ten horses totalling $5,400 on six horses he rode. He was charged with having bets, or an interest in bets, on racing generally over a two and a half year period. He was also charged with giving false and misleading evidence to the Stewards Inquiry. The Stewards imposed a disqualification of three months for the first and second charge and six months for the third charge, ordering that the penalties be served cumulatively. That decision was upheld on appeal.[24]
  5. [53]
    The appeal tribunal held that Mr Robl’s conduct was very serious and “… indicative of systemic conscious breach of the rule over a long period of time involving substantial amounts and a wide range of wagering in breach of the rule.” The case involved a jockey betting on or against horses that he was riding, which is much more serious behaviour than Mr Abbott’s. It involved a longer period of time, unlike Mr Abbott. Mr Robl’s case is not a compelling comparator for Mr Abbott’s situation. We are not persuaded that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Board was manifestly inadequate.
  6. [54]
    Queensland All Codes Racing has not shown that the Disciplinary Board’s decision was unjust or unreasonable. It has not shown that the Disciplinary Board misapplied its discretion. There is no basis for overturning its decision on penalty.

Conclusion

  1. [55]
    We are satisfied that the Disciplinary Board applied the correct test in its rehearing of Mr Abbott’s case. Its reasons for decision could be clearer, and the application of the relevant rules more transparent, but they are not grounds for this appeal tribunal to overturn the Disciplinary Board’s decision.
  2. [56]
    The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 56, line 45 to page 57, line 12.

[2]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 58, line 31 to page 59, line 7.

[3]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 65, line 47 to page 66, line 5.

[4]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 60, lines 40-42.

[5]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 61, lines 10-13.

[6]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 61, lines 18-19.

[7]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 61, lines 20-24.

[8]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 63, lines 2-4.

[9] Hooper v Racing Queensland [2012] QCATA 226.

[10]  [2012] QCATA 226.

[11] Racing Act 2002 (Qld) s 149ZE(3).

[12] Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.

[13]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 57, line 21.

[14] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362.

[15]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 61, lines 37-42.

[16]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 61, lines 44-45.

[17]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 62, lines 11-13.

[18]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 62, lines 15-17.

[19]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 62, lines 31-36.

[20]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 63, lines 23-27.

[21]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 63, lines 35-36.

[22]  Transcript of Inquiry, page 64, lines 17-18.

[23] Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513.

[24]  Racing NSW, Appeal by Peter Robl, 21 April 2011.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCATA 92

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Thomas P, Senior Member Stilgoe

  • Date:

    26 Jun 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Hooper v Racing Queensland Ltd [2012] QCATA 226
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCATA 226
Cite 2 - [2012] QCATA 226
Cite 3 - [2012] QCATA 226
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1950) 81 CLR 513
Cite 2 - (1950) 81 CLR 513

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 1462 citations
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 462 citations
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 1102 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.