You are here: Home / Non race day hearings / Appeal K J McNaught v RIU - Reserved Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 27 February 2019 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

Appeal K J McNaught v RIU - Reserved Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 27 February 2019 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

Created on 01 March 2019




IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN KIERAN JAMES McNAUGHT of Invercargill, Licensed Junior Driver




Tribunal: R G McKenzie (Chairman)

S C Ching (Member)

Venue: Forbury Park Raceway, Dunedin

Present: Mr K J McNaught, the Appellant

Mr V Munro, Stipendiary Steward for the Respondent

Mr G J Knight, Licensed Public Trainer, Lay Advocate for the Appellant

Mr K McNaught, Observer

Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward

Mr S W Wallis, Stipendiary Steward (Registrar)

Date of Hearing: 21 February 2019

Date of Decision: 27 February 2019



[1] The Respondent has appealed against the decision of the raceday Judicial Committee at the meeting of Wyndham Harness Racing Club held at Wyndham on 3rd February 2019 that in Race 2, Willys Flooring Limited / J D Souness Limited Trot, as the driver of THE POWER BROKER, he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give his horse full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible finishing place.

[2] The ground of appeal, as set out in the Notice of Appeal, is that “the finding is disagreed with as the actions taken by me during the last 200 metres of the race are not deemed to be unreasonable given the circumstances”.

[3] Mr McNaught has also appealed against the penalty of six meetings imposed by the Judicial Committee on the ground that “the penalty is excessive for the nature of the perceived rule breach. This is my first charge under any rule of racing thus my record is considered excellent. I am a Junior Driver with limited experience given this is my first full season of driving, and lastly a penalty of this significance (6 meetings) will result in me losing a number of driving opportunities going forward as other drivers will become established on horses while I am suspended. I am prepared to accept a penalty that includes a suspension and a fine (provided the fine proportion is not excessive) to reduce the suspension term if the appeal is unsuccessful”.


[4] Appeals under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing are to be by way of a rehearing (paragraph 44, Fifth Schedule). This Tribunal is to reach its determination based on the evidence adduced at the hearing of the Judicial Committee (paragraph 42.1) but may receive such further evidence, if any, as it thinks fit (paragraph 42.2). The Tribunal must have regard to the decision of the raceday Judicial Committee appealed from, but should make its own determination based on the evidence presented.


[5] At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the parties if the relevant distances could be agreed, to avoid the hearing having to revisit those matters that were canvassed in detail before the Judicial Committee.

[6] It was agreed that a full run in the passing lane became available to Mr McNaught approximately 130 metres from the finishing line and that Mr McNaught took a run in the passing lane approximately 30-35 metres from the finishing line.

Case for the Respondent

[7] Mr Munro presented the following Summary of Facts to the hearing:

1. 868(2) - Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

2. Rule 1008A: Where in any proceeding, any matter is required to be proved by an informant or defendant, the standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.

3. Mr McNaught is a Junior Driver and was driving “The Power Broker” in Race 2 at the Wyndham HRC meeting on 3rd February 2019.

4. “The Power Broker” drew barrier 6 in a 10-horse field, a standing start trot over 2400 metres.

5. Approaching the last 400 metres of the race, Mr McNaught is able to move forward and take up a position 3-back on the pylons and following “Spur To Action” (M Williamson) who in turn is trailing the leader “Star Dude” (N Williamson).

6. As the field approaches the home straight, Mr N Williamson (Star Dude) runs slightly off the pylons, this allows Mr M Williamson (Spur To Action) to come through on the inside. Mr McNaught (The Power Broker) stays hard on the back of Mr N Williamson up the straight until approximately 35 metres from the finish, when he then angles his horse sharply to the inside to obtain a clear run.

7. Of note is that Mr N Williamson (Star Dude) is the lead horse upon entering the home straight where he has rolled off and Mr M Williamson (Spur To Action) takes the inside, where he has not needed to utilise the passing lane and is not entitled to use the passing lane as he has become the lead horse entering the final straight on the last occasion. Mr M Williamson’s obligation is to maintain as straight a course as possible through the run home.

8. Both horses driven by the Williamsons are slightly running up the track under pressure, which creates an ever-widening gap through on the passing lane.

9. Mr McNaught for the majority of the home straight has looked for a run to his outside which never comes available. At about the 40 metres he makes the decision to look inside and obtains a clear run through.

10. Stewards allege that around the candy pole there is a run to the inside of Mr M Williamson, and estimated that to be about 150 metres from the finish line. There is enough room for Mr McNaught’s horse and as that gap increases, then there is room for his sulky from approximately 130 metres from the finish.

11. In the original hearing it was agreed by all parties that there was room for Mr McNaught’s horse and sulky from the 130-metre mark.

12. Mr McNaught said in the original hearing that he thought the horse that had sat parked throughout the race driven by Miss E Barron (Tommy Tiddler) would stop enough for him to obtain a run, however this did not eventuate. This is why he did not explore a run to the inside earlier.

13. Mr McNaught was asked in the hearing: “Was it his obligation to find a run for his horse, certainly in the home straight”? To which he replied “Yes, it is yes to be looking”.

14. It is clear to the Stewards that Mr McNaught has not thought about Plan B, until late in the home straight as the run to his outside is non-existent, hence him exploring an inside run option and finishing on close to the pylons.

15. Mr McNaught officially finished 4th in this race, a mere half a length from the 3rd horse. The first two margins were a nose then one and half lengths.

16. Were Mr McNaught’s actions reasonable and permissible? No, they weren’t, as he did not go searching for the inside run that was available to him, until too late and cost the horse, their connections and the punter a real chance of finishing in third place.

17. As the field approached the home straight, Mr McNaught had the mindset to obtain a run to his outside if a factor outside his control occurred. As this did not eventuate for the entire home straight at some stage, he needed to explore other options and look for a run to the inside, which he did at the 40 metres which was far too late, especially when the gap that he took then was available for the previous 90 metres.

18. The Stewards believe that Mr McNaught’s failure to take the inside was clearly an error of judgement and nothing more sinister. We are not questioning Mr McNaught’s integrity, we are saying he simply miscalculated the available space available to him on his inside from the 130 metres.

19. Mr Munro drew the Committee’s attention to the decision, Kriechbaumer v RIU, dated 28th January 2019, under the same rule as we have here, the following point was made and is relevant to this case.

20. “The way Mr Kriechbaumer was thinking at the 400 metres should not cloud his judgement for the remainder of the race.”

21. With Mr McNaught not exploring the option of a run to the inside until the latter part of the home straight he is therefore in breach of this rule. The JCA Raceday Committee was correct in their findings on the day. Was it reasonable for Mr McNaught to take the run that was presented to him? Yes. Was it permissible to take this run? Again, the answer is Yes.

[8] Mr Munro referred again to the video replays. Rounding the home turn, Mr McNaught improved onto the back of SPUR TO ACTION and ran into a pocket, he said. At the candy pole (150 metres from the finish), there was room for a horse’s legs in the passing lane and, 20 metres later, there was room for a horse and sulky. There was an ever-increasing gap as the two runners, STAR DUDE and SPUR TO ACTION ran out. When Mr McNaught eventually did take the run, there was probably room for two horses, Mr Munro submitted.

[9] In the run down the home straight, Mr McNaught continued to search for a run to his outside but TOMMY TIDDLER, despite being “parked” for most of the race had fought on gamely, Mr Munro said.

[10] Mr McNaught had, clearly, been looking only to his outside. Often that run would eventuate, but it did not do so on this occasion. The onus was on Mr McNaught to search for a run that enabled his horse to finish in the highest possible finishing position. He had done so too late, Stewards were submitting, well past the 50 metres marker on the inside of the track, Mr Munro said.

Submissions for the Appellant

[11] Mr McNaught took the hearing to a replay of the final 200-300 metres of the race. He pointed out the opportunity for him to take up the space on the back of SPUR TO ACTION. That horse had then gone into the passing lane and a gap appeared to become available to the outside of that runner as he expected TOMMY TIDDLER to stop. That horse had “kicked on”. The two leaders had drifted out gradually down the straight. The gap to the inside of SPUR TO ACTION had become apparent only quite late, At that point, Mr McNaught said, his own horse was doing its best work. He was not making any ground and made no ground when he shifted to the inside and took that run. 

[12] Mr McNaught submitted that the view that he has is completely different from the view from the head-on camera. He had to make a decision based on what, he thought, was reasonable.

[13] The Committee put it Mr McNaught that it must have become apparent to him that TOMMY TIDDLER was not going to stop. He said that it had taken him some time to get up level with that runner. He expected TOMMY TIDDLER to stop, given its recent performances, the hard run it had had in the race and that it was being driven hard. He was not to know it would not stop, he said.

[14] Mr Knight referred to the head-on video replay and said he agreed that early on the gap in the passing lane was big enough for a horse’s legs. The gap really opened when SPUR TO ACTION ducked out sharply when struck with the whip. Mr McNaught could not have known that this would happen. He posed the question that he waited for the passing lane run and not been able to get a run and the TOMMY TIDDLER had stopped would that have been the wrong decision?

15[] Mr Knight then pointed out LADY ZARA (A W Kyle), that finished 3rd. That horse was always going to run 3rd, he submitted, and Mr McNaught had made no ground on it, even after the inside run.

[16] Mr Knight then asked Mr Munro what drew his attention to Mr McNaught’s drive on the raceday. Mr Munro replied that he had noticed the “sharp action” of Mr McNaught to switch to the inside. Mc McNaught had only the side-on view, Mr Knight submitted, and had made the right call to come to the outside.

[17] Mr McNaught said that THE POWER BROKER is a 30-start maiden and this performance was his best. He has run 2nd on two occasions and 3rd twice. On the basis of the time run, this was the horse’s best effort.

[18] Mr Munro was asked by the Committee to respond to Mr Knight’s submission that THE POWER BROKER would not have finished higher than 3rd, even if Mr McNaught had take the passing lane run immediately it became available. Mr Munro said that he disagreed. Had Mr McNaught improved to the inside at the 130 metres, the horse may have been able to get into its work and finish on strongly.

[19] Mr Munro questioned Mr McNaught whether there would have ever been a run for him to the inside of TOMMY TIDDLER even if that horse had stopped. Mr McNaught that there would have so been had the two leaders not drifted out. Mr Munro added that if SPUR TO ACTION had ducked out, then Mr McNaught must have known that there was a gap to the inside. Mr Knight submitted that it was when SPUR TO ACTION had ducked out, it was then that Mr McNaught had ducked in. It was very apparent, at that point, that there was a gap. 

[20] It was easy to view the incident in hindsight but it did not warrant the charge, Mr Knight said. Mr McNaught, a young Junior Driver, had made a call and made his best efforts to find the best position for his horse.

[21] The Committee made the observation to Mr McNaught that he had been focused on the likelihood of a gap coming to his outside. Mr McNaught said that Mr Williamson on SPUR TO ACTION had taken the passing lane initially and there was no clear run. The leaders had only shifted out gradually and he had not anticipated a run, as the leaders were required under the Rules to maintain a straight line, Mr McNaught said. In theory, the gap should not have opened up, he said. Mr Munro commented that most horses have a tendency to drift out under pressure in the home straight, but is only where a runner veers in or out and takes the line of another runner that is regarded as a breach of the Rules.

Evidence of Clark James Barron

[22] Mr Knight introduced Mr Barron to the Committee. Mr Knight told the Committee that Mr Barron (a Licensed Open Driver) has driven in over 9,000 races and has driven 1,038 winners. Mr Knight submitted that he qualified as an expert witness and he was being called as such to give evidence on behalf of Mr McNaught.

[23] The side-on and head-on video replays were shown to Mr Barron. He was asked to give his opinion on what happened. Mr McNaught was three placed back on the markers approaching the home turn, he said. The passing lane was only a single passing lane. Mr McNaught was waiting for SPUR TO ACTION to take the passing lane and expecting that there would be no run there so he had “angled wide”.

[24] The two leaders had run significantly off the markers. Had they maintained a straight line as they should have, Mr McNaught would have received a run to the outside. Mr Barron agreed that there was a run “the last bit” but, when Mr McNaught did change ground, he did not have enough momentum to finish in the money.

[25] Mr Barron agreed with an observation by the Tribunal that horses do tend to run out in the home straight when they get tired.

[26] Mr Munro put it to Mr Barron that what Mr McNaught did at the 30 metres, he should have done at the 130 metres. Mr Barron disagreed. A driver watches where he is going, he said, thinking he is coming out. By the time the run to the inside appeared, and he had to ease back slightly from behind SPUR TO ACTION to get a run. Mr Barron agreed that a driver should always be looking for the best available run and, in this case, Mr McNaught should have been looking for another option when the run to his outside did not materialise. Mr Barron further accepted that this had happened in this case, but he was not prepared to say that Mr McNaught had left it too late.

[27] The Tribunal put it to Mr Barron that it was apparent that TOMMY TIDDLER, despite its hard run, did not look like it was going to stop to enable a run for Mr McNaught. He reiterated that had the two leaders not drifted out, then a run would have been available in any event. Mr Barron said that he believed that Mr McNaught had driven to the best of his and the horse’s ability, not knowing that the run was coming on the inside.

[28] It was put to Mr Barron by the Tribunal that with no runner to his inside, Mr McNaught would be aware of room to the inside. Mr Barron, in reply to a question from Mr McNaught, said that Mr McNaught would not realise, from where he was, that there was a full gap, even though it was opening. Mr McNaught was looking both out and in, Mr Barron said.

Closing Submissions by the Respondent

[29] Mr Munro then made closing submissions as follows:

The Stewards’ summary is that Mr McNaught has followed Mr N Williamson around the final turn, where he had hoped for a run to his outside in the home straight. As Mr McNaught alluded to in his raceday evidence, “he thought the parked horse would stop and give him a run”.

1. It is clear that Mr McNaught did not have a Plan B or want to explore other options available until late in the home straight.

2. If Mr McNaught had looked to his inside, earlier than when he actually did, he would have seen where he was in relation to the pylons, and the fact there was no one to his inside or coming from behind him to take that run.

3. Could have and should have. In Mr McNaught’s raceday evidence he said “he had not known that room was on the inside of him”. So, what is the difference between 130 metres and then approximately 35 metres, that there is an ample opportunity to check if that run was available instead of hoping for a run to his outside?

4. Was it reasonable for Mr McNaught to take that run earlier? Yes.

5. Was it permissible for Mr McNaught to take that run earlier? Yes, and he did not.

6. It is Mr McNaught’s obligation under the rules to obtain the best possible run for his drive? To explore options and take them if available, like the run was this day?

7. The error by Mr McNaught not to take the inside run earlier has had a serious effect on him finishing in 3rd place, which does have a major impact on the betting public who invested on The Power Broker to finish in the top three positions.

Closing Submission on Behalf of the Appellant

[30] Mr Knight said that it was a “judgement call” in a horse race by Mr McNaught. He did not believe that a charge was appropriate.

Reasons for Decision

[31] A number of principles emerge from the various cases decided under Rule 868 (2). Those principles include the following:

(1) It is the quality of the drive in the circumstances of the particular case which has to be judged;

(2) That judgement must be based on an objective assessment of the drive in the particular race;

(3) A mere error of judgement by a driver is not a sufficient basis for an adverse finding that the Rule has been breached; and

(4) The driver’s conduct must be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged, it is found to be blameworthy.

[32] The core focus of the Rule is the quality or otherwise of the drive. That is to say, if the driver fails, given the circumstances of the race, to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field, then he is in breach of the Rule and liable to penalty.

[33] The Rule imposes an objective standard of care. The standard of care takes into account, among other things, the views and explanation of the driver and the opinion of the Stewards.

[34] The onus is on the Stewards to prove that a driver has been in breach of the Rule. A driver is required to give an explanation for his actions, but the onus always remains on the Stewards.

[35] The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. However, because of the seriousness of the charge and the gravity of the consequences that flow from a finding that the charge is proved, the Committee must have a reasonable degree of satisfaction that the charge has been proved. Essentially, we must be comfortably satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case and viewed objectively, the manner in which Mr McNaught drove his horse fell well short of what would reasonably be expected of a driver in his position.

[36] Turning to the facts of this case, the Tribunal heard much evidence and submissions from both parties. However, the issue for the Tribunal to determine is simple and it is whether or not Mr McNaught took all reasonable and permissible measures when not taking, until 30-35 metres from the finishing line, the run in the passing lane which, all had agreed, became available to him 100 metres earlier.

[37] It is useful to set out the findings of fact made by the raceday Judicial Committee. We set out hereunder the relevant findings of fact:

• Mr McNaught was looking for an outside run. When that did not eventuate, he should have assessed his options.

• For approximately 90 metres (we are satisfied that it was 100 metres) before Mr McNaught shifted down on the track there was a passing lane run to the inside of SPUR TO ACTION.

• Mr McNaught should have had a look and explored a run to the inside.

• There is no evidence on the video of his looking for a run to the inside of SPUR TO ACTION, rather the head of his horse is turned outwards on occasion as he is looking for a run to the inside of TOMMY TIDDLER.

• A developing run became increasingly available down the straight and, as both parties agreed, was fully available in the passing lane from the 130 metres.

• Mr McNaught did not take the run until 35 metres from the winning post.

[38] The Judicial Committee found that, in failing to take the passing lane sooner than he did, Mr McNaught had failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible finishing position.

[39] While this Tribunal is required to reach its own conclusion on the evidence that it has seen and heard, we agree with all of the above findings of fact by the Judicial Committee. We would add that Mr McNaught made a culpable error of judgement in awaiting a run to the inside of TOMMY TIDDLER, driven by Miss Barron. It was quite apparent from the video replay, and should have been to Mr McNaught, that TOMMY TIDDLER was showing no signs of stopping so as to give Mr McNaught a run to its outside. He needed to recognise this and, as the Judicial Committee said, and look for another reasonable and permissible option – that is to say, to take the ever-widening gap to his inside.

[40] There were a couple of other matters put forward on behalf of Mr McNaught that we need to deal with. Firstly, that THE POWER BROKER was a 30-start maiden with only four minor placings on his record. Secondly, that it would not have finished higher than 4th placing, even if Mr McNaught had taken the passing lane run earlier.

[41] Neither of those matters provide a defence or part-defence to a charge of failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures. In any event, we do not necessarily accept the second of those matters.

[42] Adopting the pragmatic approach of The Hon Justice Haylen, when he said in the context of a charge under the equivalent Australian rule “a reasonable and knowledgeable harness racing spectator” might well have asked, referring to Mr McNaught’s drive, “What on earth is he doing?” or “My goodness, look at that!” This is the objective test.

[43] Having considered all of the evidence and submissions and viewed the video replays, and having assessed Mr McNaught’s drive objectively, we find that his actions, or lack of action, amounted to more than a mere error of judgement but that his drive was culpable in that it was blameworthy. We have taken into account Mr McNaught’s explanation but we do not accept that any of the reasons put forward by him justified his lack of action in not driving THE POWER BROKER to give it the best possible chance in the race. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that it was both reasonable and permissible for him to have improved his position from the 130 metres and not to await a run to the inside of another runner which he had anticipated.

[44] The appeal against the finding of the Judicial Committee is dismissed.

Penalty Submissions

[45] The grounds of Mr McNaught’s appeal against the penalty finding of the raceday Judicial Committee, as set out in his Notice of Appeal, are set out in paragraph [3] above.

[46] Mr McNaught submitted to the Tribunal that he has, effectively, already served a penalty of a 1-day suspension. The stay was granted by this Tribunal on Tuesday, 12 February, by which time he had informed the relevant parties that he was under suspension and would not be able to drive at the Winton HRC meeting on 17 February, he said. Mr McNaught had been granted a deferment of his suspension until after racing on 9 February. He had not asked for a stay of suspension in his Notice of Appeal, as he was not aware that the hearing date would be as late as it was.

[47] Mr Munro explained to the Tribunal how this situation came about. Mr McNaught filed his Notice of Appeal with the Judicial Committee on 4 February, the day following the race meeting. Mr Munro referred to paragraph 35.6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure which provides:

A notice of appeal against a decision of a race day Judicial Committee, whether or not the proceeding was concluded on the day of racing, must be filed by not later than 5.00 pm on the third working day after the written decision of the Judicial Committee is delivered.

[48] The Tribunal understands that the “written decision” was eventually posted on the JCA website on 8 February. It may have been made available to Mr McNaught the previous day, 7 February. A stay of suspension was granted by the Tribunal during a telephone conference on 12 February.

[49] Mr McNaught quite correctly pointed out that, on the Notice of Appeal form, no reference is made to “written decision”. The Tribunal accepts that this a defect in the Notice of Appeal form.

[50] Mr McNaught submitted that a 6-days suspension was “incredibly excessive”. He would lose the drives on horses during a suspension of that duration and other drivers would become established. He raised again the possibility, discussed at the raceday hearing, of a combined penalty of a fine and a suspension.

[51] Mr Munro told the hearing that, subsequent to the raceday, he had a look at Mr McNaught’s driving record in detail. In the 2017/2018 season (from October 2017), Mr McNaught had 33 drives (14 meetings, 1 drive – 6 meetings, 2 drives – 1 meeting, 3 drives and 1 meeting, 4 drives).

[52] In the current season to date, Mr McNaught has had 53 drives (7 meetings, 1 drive – 12 meetings, 2 drives – 6 meetings, 3 drives – 1 meeting, 4 drives). So, in the current season, Mr McNaught has driven at 26 meetings which equates to a fraction over 2 drives per meeting.

Appeal Against Penalty

[53] The Tribunal is satisfied that the Judicial Committee correctly assessed the penalty. It correctly referred to the Penalty Guide starting point of a 20-drive starting point for a breach of the Rule. We believe that, quite correctly, the Committee found that there were no aggravating or mitigating facts with respect to the breach itself. It then factored in the personal mitigating factors which it identified – Mr McNaught’s Junior Driver status/inexperience and his record, which it described as “excellent”.

[54] This Tribunal can find no basis on which to interfere with the Judicial Committee’s penalty, so arrived at, of a six meetings suspension, which it arrived at based on 2 ½ drives per meeting for Mr McNaught. The Judicial Committee did not have detailed information to make the assessment of 2 ½ drives per meeting. We have had the benefit of the statistics helpfully provided by Mr Munro and the calculation of 2 ½ drives per meeting we adopt.

[55] Mr McNaught submitted that he was deprived, or perhaps he deprived himself due to a misunderstanding (see above), of the opportunity to take drives at the meeting of Winton HRC on 17 February and that any suspension should include that meeting. The Tribunal is inclined to take a sympathetic view of this in the circumstances, as there is some merit in Mr McNaught’s submission. Accordingly, we accept that it is appropriate that that meeting should be included in the suspension of six meetings imposed by the Judicial Committee, meaning that there is a suspension of five further meetings to be served by Mr McNaught.

[56] The Tribunal sees no grounds for interfering with the Judicial Committee’s decision that a combined penalty, a fine and a suspension, was not appropriate. Mr McNaught’s Junior Driver’s licence is suspended for a period of five meetings. Mr McNaught is entitled to seek a deferment to enable him to complete any engagement to drive a horse that he may have at the meeting of Invercargill HRC on 3 March next. If he requires a deferment, he should notify the Executive Officer of the Judicial Committee immediately. Failing that, the stay of suspension is lifted and his licence is suspended from the date of this decision up to and including 23 March next. The five meetings intended to be encompassed by that period of suspension are Invercargill HRC on 3 March, Forbury Park TC on 7 March, Northern Southland TC on 9 March, Wyndham HRC on 16 March and Wairio TC on 23 March. In the event that Mr McNaught wishes to defer until after Invercargill HRC on 3 March next, the suspension will extend to include Forbury Park TC on 25 March next.

[57] Mr McNaught is to advise the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority prior to the time for notification of drivers (Thursday, 28 February at 1.00 pm) for the meeting of Invercargill HRC on 3 March next whether he wishes to seek a deferment to enable him to drive at that meeting.

[58] Leave is granted to either party to apply to the Tribunal for clarification as to the terms of the suspension.


[59] There will be no order as to costs. However, Mr McNaught is ordered to pay to the RIU the costs of the transcript of the raceday hearing ($253.58). The fee on filing the appeal paid by Mr McNaught is forfeited to the JCA.

R G McKenzie


Document Actions