Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg [2003] NSWCA 388

Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg [2003] NSWCA 388

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court judge erred by conducting a merits review instead of confining consideration to irrationality or illogicality. The judge's findings that the Regulatory Committee and Tribunal failed to conduct 'due inquiry' or to apply the Briginshaw standard were not sustainable on the proper standard of review. The authorities' factual determinations and processes were not shown to be irrational or illogical. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Appeal From Supreme Court, Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'due Inquiry' 'standard of Proof (briginshaw Standard)' 'merits Review Vs Judicial Review' 'irrationality/illogicality as Ground for Review']
['administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'due Inquiry' 'standard of Proof (briginshaw Standard)' 'merits Review Vs Judicial Review' 'irrationality/illogicality as Ground for Review']

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 (appeal) / Appeal From Supreme Court, Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the regulatory committee and the tribunal failed to conduct a 'due inquiry' as required by statute" 'Whether the standard of proof under Briginshaw v Briginshaw was correctly applied' 'Whether judicial review was confined to errors of law or included merits review' 'Whether the committee and tribunal acted irrationally or illogically in reaching their conclusions']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court judge erred by conducting a merits review instead of confining consideration to irrationality or illogicality. The judge's findings that the Regulatory Committee and Tribunal failed to conduct 'due inquiry' or to apply the Briginshaw standard were not sustainable on the proper standard of review. The authorities' factual determinations and processes were not shown to be irrational or illogical. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['That the appeal be allowed' 'That orders of the Court made 27 February 2003 be set aside' "The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below"]