Alligator Blood… and (natural) justice for all.
27 August 2026
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Endresz; Racing Queensland Board v Endresz [2024] QCA 76
The Queensland Court of Appeal has confirmed that racehorse owners are entitled to natural justice before stewards disqualify their horse, and that a failure to afford it can render the disqualification void.
The decision is a useful reminder, well beyond the racing industry, that decision-makers exercising quasi-judicial powers must identify everyone whose interests will be affected, not just the person in the room.
Background
Alligator Blood, then owned by a syndicate managed by Mr Allan Endresz, was declared the winner of the 2020 Magic Millions 3YO Guineas. The win entitled the owners to prizemoney of almost $1 million.
A post-race urine sample returned a positive result for a prohibited substance. The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) put the trainer through a stewards’ inquiry, which resulted in the horse being disqualified from the race under AR 240(1) of the Australian Rules of Racing (AR).
The owners were not invited to participate in that inquiry and were not given an opportunity to be heard, despite the disqualification stripping them of roughly $1 million.
Mr Endresz applied to the Supreme Court, arguing that the stewards were required to afford the owners natural justice and had failed to do so. The primary judge (Burns J) agreed, finding that the AR contain an implied term that stewards will afford owners natural justice, and declared the disqualification void for want of notice and an opportunity to be heard: Endresz v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QSC 262.
QRIC and the Racing Queensland Board appealed.
The Court of Appeal decision
The appeals were dismissed (Morrison JA, Fraser AJA and Williams J).
The Court held that the owners had a “material interest” in being heard on the question of disqualification. [58]
It was not enough that the trainer had participated. The interests of a trainer and the interests of owners will not always align, and the trainer could not be treated as standing in the owners’ shoes. [59]
The Court restated the underlying principle:
“…deep-rooted principle … that before any one can be punished or prejudiced … by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, (they) must be afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard.” [52]
Four key points
- Owners have a right to natural justice under AR 240 of the Australian Rules of Racing. [69]
- Failure to afford natural justice to owners, or to any other relevant person, may invalidate a decision of QRIC.
- The minimum content of natural justice is a formal allegation, the presentation of the evidence relied on, and an opportunity to be heard. [66]
- Form is not the point. The obligation can be discharged informally; it would be wrong to encourage unnecessary formality or technicality. [53]
What this means
If you are making a decision that will strip someone of money, property or a right, the question is not “who is the licensee?” It is “whose interests are affected?” Anyone in that second category needs to know the allegation, see the evidence and have a genuine chance to respond, before the decision is made rather than after it.
The principle is not confined to racing. Sporting bodies of every kind exercise quasi-judicial powers over athletes, officials, coaches and clubs: anti-doping findings, disciplinary tribunals, eligibility and selection decisions, results being stripped. Wherever a decision of that character will prejudice someone’s interests, that person is entitled to know the allegation, see the evidence and be heard before the decision is made, not after it.
Are you an athlete, official, club or participant in any sport, or an owner or industry participant in racing? If you are facing a disciplinary, integrity or regulatory process that affects your interests, Clutch Legal can help. We also advise sporting bodies on running processes that will withstand challenge. Contact our office on (07) 5370 8842 or via email at hello@clutchlegal.com.au