Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission v Verhagen & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1140

Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission v Verhagen & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1140

The Tribunal made jurisdictional error on Charge 13 by relying on the first defendant's asserted expertise to conclude that veterinary attention was not necessary for catastrophically injured pups. Once the injured pups were discovered, veterinary assistance became necessary, at least by telephone consultation, because the purpose of the rules was to promote and protect greyhound welfare throughout life and the first defendant had no means of providing pain relief. The Tribunal's dismissal of Charge 13 was therefore quashed. In relation to Charge 18, the plaintiff did not establish error because, absent causation evidence and absent any direction to install a roll bar, the first defendant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Summons for Judicial Review of a Racing Appeals Tribunal Decision / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiff succeeded in relation to Charge 13 and failed in relation to Charge 18; each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'veterinary Attention for Greyhounds' 'negligence' 'racing Appeals Tribunal']
['administrative Law' 'greyhound Racing Regulation' 'animal Welfare'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'veterinary Attention for Greyhounds' 'negligence' 'racing Appeals Tribunal']

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

Summons for Judicial Review of a Racing Appeals Tribunal Decision / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Racing Appeals Tribunal made a jurisdictional error or error of law in dismissing Charge 13 under r 106(1)(d) of the Greyhound Racing Rules 2017 (NSW).' "Whether veterinary attention was necessary for two catastrophically injured greyhound pups and whether the Tribunal wrongly applied a subjective test based on the first defendant's experience." 'Whether the Racing Appeals Tribunal erred in dismissing Charge 18 under r 86(o) of the Greyhound Racing Rules 2017 (NSW) concerning alleged negligence arising from the absence of a roll bar or crush rail in a whelping box.' 'Whether the appropriate negligence question for Charge 18 was whether a reasonable person would have acted in the same way as the first defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made jurisdictional error on Charge 13 by relying on the first defendant's asserted expertise to conclude that veterinary attention was not necessary for catastrophically injured pups. Once the injured pups were discovered, veterinary assistance became necessary, at least by telephone consultation, because the purpose of the rules was to promote and protect greyhound welfare throughout life and the first defendant had no means of providing pain relief. The Tribunal's dismissal of Charge 13 was therefore quashed. In relation to Charge 18, the plaintiff did not establish error because, absent causation evidence and absent any direction to install a roll bar, the first defendant...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff succeeded in relation to Charge 13 and failed in relation to Charge 18; each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['An order, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), in the nature of certiorari, quashing the decision of the second defendant to dismiss Charge 13 brought by the plaintiff against the first defendant.' "An order, pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), in the nature of mandamus,...