Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300

Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300

The warning off decision was invalid for apprehended bias because Mr V'landys personally threatened defamation proceedings against Mr Golden, claiming damages and costs for the same conduct that was the subject of the warning off decision, and then made the decision affecting Mr Golden's rights; the fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that he might not bring an impartial mind to that decision. His role in initiating the amended show cause process also placed him in a position akin to accuser or moving party as well as decision-maker. Discretionary relief should not be withheld because judicial review was the only practical avenue then available, Mr Golden had not abandoned his...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review and Misfeasance Claims / Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part on apprehended bias; warning off decision quashed; remaining grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'improper Purpose' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'racing Regulation' 'discretionary Relief' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'torts'] ['apprehended Bias' 'improper Purpose' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'racing Regulation' 'discretionary Relief' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review and Misfeasance Claims / Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the decision of Mr V'landys dated 24 June 2011 to warn Mr Golden off all racetracks controlled by Racing New South Wales was affected by apprehended bias." 'Whether the warning off decision was made for an improper purpose.' 'Whether relief should be withheld as a matter of discretion because Mr Golden did not appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal or seek annulment from Racing New South Wales.' 'Whether the warning off decision constituted the tort of misfeasance in public office.' "Whether fresh evidence concerning Mr Golden's later request to annul the warning off should be admitted on appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The warning off decision was invalid for apprehended bias because Mr V'landys personally threatened defamation proceedings against Mr Golden, claiming damages and costs for the same conduct that was the subject of the warning off decision, and then made the decision affecting Mr Golden's rights; the fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that he might not bring an impartial mind to that decision. His role in initiating the amended show cause process also placed him in a position akin to accuser or moving party as well as decision-maker. Discretionary relief should not be withheld because judicial review was the only practical avenue then available, Mr Golden had not abandoned his...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part on apprehended bias; warning off decision quashed; remaining grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'The affidavit of Mr Golden sworn 6 September 2016 is admitted as evidence on this appeal pursuant to s 75A of the Supreme Court Act.' 'Further amended notice of appeal to be filed within 7 days of the date of publication of this judgment.' 'Ground 4 of the further amended notice of...