Trainor v Harness Racing New South Wales & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1278

Trainor v Harness Racing New South Wales & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1278

The claim of apprehended bias is not established because, under the statutory and regulatory scheme governing harness racing, stewards commonly perform investigative and adjudicative roles. Mr Prentice's conduct as lead investigator and actions leading up to the Inquiry, including correspondence and evidence gathering, are routine and do not individually or collectively give rise to a logical or reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality. No statements or actions demonstrated pre-judgment or personal interest beyond the scope anticipated by the rules and authorities. Consequently, the plaintiff's application must be dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jack Trainor; First Defendant: Harness Racing New South Wales; Second Defendant: Michael Prentice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity – Duty List / Final Hearing and Judgment on Application for Injunctive Relief (summons)
Outcome
Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
Apprehended Bias, Natural Justice, Recusal Applications, Administrative Decision Making, Practice and Procedure in Sports Regulation
Administrative Law Sports Law Procedural Law Apprehended Bias Natural Justice Recusal Applications Administrative Decision Making Practice and Procedure in 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Trainor

Plaintiff

Harness Racing New South Wales

First Defendant

Michael Prentice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity – Duty List / Final Hearing and Judgment on Application for Injunctive Relief (summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether apprehended bias was established against Mr Prentice acting as chairman of the Panel
  2. 2 Whether it was an error of law for the recusal application to be determined by the Panel as a whole rather than Mr Prentice alone

Ratio Decidendi

The claim of apprehended bias is not established because, under the statutory and regulatory scheme governing harness racing, stewards commonly perform investigative and adjudicative roles. Mr Prentice's conduct as lead investigator and actions leading up to the Inquiry, including correspondence and evidence gathering, are routine and do not individually or collectively give rise to a logical or reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality. No statements or actions demonstrated pre-judgment or personal interest beyond the scope anticipated by the rules and authorities. Consequently, the plaintiff's application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs.

Orders

  • Order that the Summons filed on 18 October 2023 be dismissed.
  • Order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings.