Absalom v Greyhound Racing New South Wales ABN 61018166136 [2018] NSWSC 207

Absalom v Greyhound Racing New South Wales ABN 61018166136 [2018] NSWSC 207

The Hydration Policy is not ultra vires or inconsistent with the Act or the Rules, as the first defendant acts as a regulator for voluntary participants and is empowered to implement binding policies. Rule 86(ag) makes the policy binding, and any alleged harm to a particular greyhound from compliance does not make the policy invalid. There was no denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Summons dismissed; proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'ultra Vires' 'validity of Policy' 'procedural Fairness' 'interpretation of Statutory Powers' 'sports Regulation']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'ultra Vires' 'validity of Policy' 'procedural Fairness' 'interpretation of Statutory Powers' 'sports Regulation']

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

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Hydration Policy of Greyhound Racing NSW is ultra vires or inconsistent with the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW) or the Rules' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider evidence that compliance with the policy would harm the greyhound' 'Whether the policy is inconsistent with a duty to prevent harm under Rule 106' 'Whether procedural fairness was denied']

Ratio Decidendi

The Hydration Policy is not ultra vires or inconsistent with the Act or the Rules, as the first defendant acts as a regulator for voluntary participants and is empowered to implement binding policies. Rule 86(ag) makes the policy binding, and any alleged harm to a particular greyhound from compliance does not make the policy invalid. There was no denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed' "The plaintiff shall pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings" 'Otherwise, the proceedings are dismissed']