Goodrich v Racing Victoria Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board

[2020] VSCA 110

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Review jurisdiction
5. › Functions on review
6. › Whether tribunal bound to exercise primary review function under s 51 before resorting to ancillary power of summary dismissal under s 75
7. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), ss 51, 75
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Review jurisdiction
5. › Correct or preferable decision
6. › Whether tribunal obliged to set aside decision and dismiss charge where prosecuting authority declines to adduce evidence
7. › Whether consent of parties required
8. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 51(2)(c)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Continuation of proceedings for collateral purpose
4. › Whether refusal to accept consent orders constituted abuse of process
5. › Whether predominant purpose was collateral
6. › Relationship between summary dismissal power and merits review function
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Summary dismissal
5. › Power under s 75
6. › Whether partial summary dismissal precluded subsequent total dismissal on same basis
7. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 75(1)

Quick Take

VCAT must prioritise its primary merits review function under s 51 of the VCAT Act over its ancillary power of summary dismissal under s 75. Where a prosecuting authority declines to adduce evidence in support of a disciplinary decision under review, VCAT is bound to set aside the decision and dismiss the charge under s 51(2)(c), regardless of the applicant's consent. An order merely setting aside a conviction without dismissing the underlying charge is an error of substance, not form. Having partially dismissed a proceeding to remove a collateral purpose, VCAT cannot then dismiss the entire proceeding on the basis that the (now removed) collateral purpose constitutes an abuse of process.