Sarkis v Greyhound Racing New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1987

Sarkis v Greyhound Racing New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1987

No jurisdictional error was established. The interim suspension was within the disciplinary and work health and safety purposes permitted by the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW); r 92(4) did not impose mandatory considerations for an interim suspension under r 92(5); the plaintiff had an opportunity to put submissions and the decision-maker was not required to inquire into hardship not raised; the plaintiff's denial was considered; there was no prejudgment or lack of intelligible justification. In any event, the plaintiff's deliberate failure to use the available de novo appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a separate and decisive discretionary reason to refuse prerogative relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review Seeking Prerogative Relief and an Order Quashing a Decision to Suspend Greyhound Trainer and Breeder Registration / Amended Summons Heard in the Equity Duty List; Ex Tempore Revised Principal Judgment
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'prerogative Relief' 'interim Suspension of Registration' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'apprehended Prejudgment' 'availability of Appeal to Specialist Tribunal' 'hearing De Novo']
['administrative Law' 'greyhound Racing Regulation' 'judicial Review'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'prerogative Relief' 'interim Suspension of Registration' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'apprehended Prejudgment' 'availability of Appeal to Specialist Tribunal' 'hearing De Novo']

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

Administrative Law Judicial Review Seeking Prerogative Relief and an Order Quashing a Decision to Suspend Greyhound Trainer and Breeder Registration / Amended Summons Heard in the Equity Duty List; Ex Tempore Revised Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second defendant's interim suspension decision was made for a permitted purpose under s 21(3) of the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW)." "Whether r 92(4) of the GRNSW Greyhound Racing Rules required the second defendant to consider the plaintiff's character and antecedents before exercising the interim suspension power in r 92(5)(c)." 'Whether the second defendant was required to inquire into the likely financial or personal effect of the suspension on the plaintiff.' "Whether the second defendant failed to take into account the plaintiff's denial of the live baiting allegations." 'Whether the second defendant prejudged the allegations or was not open to persuasion.' "Whether there was a lack of intelligible justification because the plaintiff's accusers were not evidently suspended." 'Whether prerogative relief should be withheld because the plaintiff chose not to appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

No jurisdictional error was established. The interim suspension was within the disciplinary and work health and safety purposes permitted by the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW); r 92(4) did not impose mandatory considerations for an interim suspension under r 92(5); the plaintiff had an opportunity to put submissions and the decision-maker was not required to inquire into hardship not raised; the plaintiff's denial was considered; there was no prejudgment or lack of intelligible justification. In any event, the plaintiff's deliberate failure to use the available de novo appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a separate and decisive discretionary reason to refuse prerogative relief.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons be dismissed with costs.']