McCarthy v NSW Racing Appeals Tribunal [2014] NSWSC 798

McCarthy v NSW Racing Appeals Tribunal [2014] NSWSC 798

The Tribunal erred in applying a rule where parties ordinarily pay their own costs unless the conduct of the party against whom costs are sought is unreasonable. Instead, in disciplinary appeal proceedings, a successful participant has a reasonable expectation of a costs order unless there are grounds connected with the charge or conduct of proceedings that render such an award unjust or unreasonable. The Tribunal's focus exclusively on respondent's conduct, rather than applicant's entitlement flowing from success, was an error of law on the face of the record and required the costs decision to be set aside.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke McCarthy; First Defendant: NSW Racing Appeals Tribunal; Second Defendant: Harness Racing New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal refusing costs is set aside; costs application to be determined according to law; Second Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s costs.
Legal Topics
Supervisory Jurisdiction, Costs, Disciplinary Appeals, Procedure Before Tribunals
Administrative Law Supervisory Jurisdiction Costs Disciplinary Appeals Procedure Before Tribunals

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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke McCarthy

Plaintiff

NSW Racing Appeals Tribunal

First Defendant

Harness Racing New South Wales

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach to costs in Racing Appeals Tribunal proceedings when a participant overturns an adverse disciplinary finding?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal err in failing to apply the 'usual rule' that costs follow the event?
  3. 3 Was the Tribunal's process fair to the applicant regarding the determination of costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in applying a rule where parties ordinarily pay their own costs unless the conduct of the party against whom costs are sought is unreasonable. Instead, in disciplinary appeal proceedings, a successful participant has a reasonable expectation of a costs order unless there are grounds connected with the charge or conduct of proceedings that render such an award unjust or unreasonable. The Tribunal's focus exclusively on respondent's conduct, rather than applicant's entitlement flowing from success, was an error of law on the face of the record and required the costs decision to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal refusing costs is set aside; costs application to be determined according to law; Second Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s costs.

Orders

  • The decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal dated 15 May 2013 refusing the Plaintiff's application for costs be set aside.
  • The Racing Appeals Tribunal determine the Plaintiff's application for costs according to law.