Rob Anderson KC represented the second respondent, instructed by Clayton Utz.
In summary, the appellants appeal the decision to dismiss their application, in which they argued that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to establish a third stewards’ inquiry into whether their horse was under the influence of a prohibited drug when it won a race. They advanced four grounds of appeal: (1) the inquiry was not commenced within a reasonable time; (2) questions of disqualification and breach could not be determined in a separate inquiry; (3) only the original race‑day stewards could conduct the inquiry; and (4) the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to commence the inquiry while their court application was pending.
The Court dismissed the appeal. They held that the inquiry commenced within a reasonable time, and any delay was the result of intervening court proceedings which is not unreasonable. Further, the Court held that questions of disqualification and breach could be decidedly separately and it was appropriate in the circumstances to appoint a different panel of stewards. Lastly, the Court rejected the jurisdictional argument in the interest of justice, as there was no evidence the third panel had yet acted and the challenge would merely delay an inevitable process.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
