Queensland Trotting Board v McLean [1972] HCA 13

Queensland Trotting Board v McLean [1972] HCA 13

The Supreme Court's order of prohibition was not appropriate as the Rules of Trotting permitted the Board to delegate appeal hearings to an appropriately constituted committee; the correct remedy was certiorari to quash the Board's decision, not prohibition restraining enforcement of the stewards' penalty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia – Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'prerogative Writs' 'delegation of Powers' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['natural Justice' 'prerogative Writs' 'delegation of Powers' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia – Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court was correct to grant prohibition rather than certiorari after finding a breach of natural justice by the Queensland Trotting Board.' 'Whether the Board could lawfully delegate the hearing of the appeal to a sub-committee or committee other than its members.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's order of prohibition was not appropriate as the Rules of Trotting permitted the Board to delegate appeal hearings to an appropriately constituted committee; the correct remedy was certiorari to quash the Board's decision, not prohibition restraining enforcement of the stewards' penalty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'In lieu thereof order that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the decision of the Queensland Trotting Board made on 21st October 1971.' "The Queensland Trotting Board to pay the prosecutors' costs of the application in the Supreme Court." 'No order for costs of this...