Forbes v NSW Trotting Club Ltd [1979] HCA 27

Forbes v NSW Trotting Club Ltd [1979] HCA 27

The resolution, properly construed, was a warning off under the Rules of Trotting because it excluded the appellant not only from the respondent's named paceways but also from courses occupied by or under the respondent's control as controlling body. The respondent was required to observe natural justice before exercising that power, but the appellant was given no opportunity to be heard. The invalid warning off could not be justified as merely an exercise of proprietary rights, and declaratory relief was not futile because the warning off carried or could carry wider consequences under the Rules. The resolution was therefore ultra vires and void.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal by Special Leave From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['warning Off From Trotting Courses' 'procedural Fairness' 'proprietorial Rights of Racecourse Owner' 'declaratory Relief' 'rules of Trotting']
['administrative Law' 'natural Justice' 'company and Associations Law' 'property Law' 'sports and Racing Law'] ['warning Off From Trotting Courses' 'procedural Fairness' 'proprietorial Rights of Racecourse Owner' 'declaratory Relief' 'rules of Trotting']

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

Appeal / High Court Appeal by Special Leave From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's resolution excluding the appellant from Harold Park Paceway, Menangle Paceway and other courses was a warning off under r. 28 of the Rules of Trotting or merely an exercise of proprietary rights." 'Whether the respondent was required to observe the principles of natural justice before warning off the appellant.' 'Whether the resolution was void because the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard.' 'Whether a declaration of invalidity should be refused as futile because the respondent claimed proprietary rights to exclude the appellant from its own lands.']

Ratio Decidendi

The resolution, properly construed, was a warning off under the Rules of Trotting because it excluded the appellant not only from the respondent's named paceways but also from courses occupied by or under the respondent's control as controlling body. The respondent was required to observe natural justice before exercising that power, but the appellant was given no opportunity to be heard. The invalid warning off could not be justified as merely an exercise of proprietary rights, and declaratory relief was not futile because the warning off carried or could carry wider consequences under the Rules. The resolution was therefore ultra vires and void.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) was set aside.' 'The appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed with costs.' 'The judgment of Waddell J. was set aside.' 'A declaration was granted that the resolution of the defendant resolving that the plaintiff be forthwith and henceforth...