The decision of the respondent made on 31 October 2016 refusing the grant of a Restricted Trainer Licence to the applicant is affirmed.

1. On 6 March 2015, the applicant (Mr Collins) submitted an application to Racing Victoria Ltd (RV) for the grant of a Restricted Trainer's Licence. On 31 October 2016, RV refused the application.
2. Refusal was on the grounds that Mr Collins lacks experience in the field and that he does not have adequate financial resources to carry on training activities without material risk of being unable to pay his debts as and when they fall due.
3. The Racing Act vests control of racing in Victoria in RV, which, in turn, has established Local Rules of Racing. Local Rule 35A(3) allows for the prescription by RV of a Victorian Trainer Racing Policy (the Policy) which shall prescribe:

(a) educational qualifications, training units and experience levels which must be attained as a pre-requisite to the grant of a licence to train; or

(b) any other pre-requisite for the grant of a licence to train as deemed appropriate.

1. The policy is published on the RV website.
2. The policy:

a. Provides that Restricted Trainer Licences are generally granted to:

1. relatively inexperienced trainers of persons, including those seeking to obtain a General Trainer Licence;
2. persons with limited training operations, including persons who are 'owner/trainers'; or

1. trainers of non-Thoroughbred racehorses seeking to train Thoroughbred racehorses.

In addition to any specific requirements set out in this Policy or in the Rules [of Racing], it is a requirement for the grant of any licence to train ... that the Person:

(a) Experience: has the practical experience reasonably required to carry on the vocation of a trainer;

(d) Financial Resources: has adequate financial resources to carry on training activities without material risk of being unable to pay his or her debts as and when they fall due.

In assessing whether an Applicant is suitable to be granted a Restricted Trainer Licence, Racing Victoria will take into account the following criteria:

(c) Financial Resources References: The Applicant must provide the following references to the satisfaction of Racing Victoria:

(i) Three (3) Supplier Credit References (in writing);

(g) Interview: The Applicant must complete a satisfactory interview with Racing Victoria.

1. It should be noted that the Policy was amended in June 2016 to insert the requirements of experience. Mr Collins argues that as his application was made before the amendment that the requirements should not apply to him. I disagree. The decision of RV was made on 31 October 2016 under the current policy. Mr Collins had no accrued rights under the policy as it existed before June 2016. The Tribunal makes its decision as at present under the Policy as it exists now. In any case, this is of no consequence as will be explained below.

1. The standard of proof is the normal civil standard of balance of probabilities. In matters such as this, the principles stated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw[1] in particular the following passages have been applied:

The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality.[2]

The seriousness of the allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.[3]

1. However, in Karakatsanis Racing Victoria Ltd[4] Osborne JA observed at paragraphs 38 and 39:
   1. In Greyhound Racing Authority v Bra__gg ([2003] NSWCA 388) Santow JA expressed in the following way the applicability of the Briginshaw concepts to the functions of a tribunal concerned with questions of the type in issue in this case.

The notion of 'inexact proof, and indefinite testimony or indirect references [scil. inferences]' needs to be translated to a comfortable level of satisfaction, fairly and properly arrived at, commensurate with the gravity of the charge, achieved in accordance with fair processes appropriate to and adopted by such a body.

1. This formulation captures the relevant sense in which the application of the principles stated by Dixon J in Briginshaw must be qualified in cases such as the present.

In recent cases before this Tribunal[5] the 'comfortable level of satisfaction' formulation has been applied.

1. When Mr Collins made his application he claimed that he had been registered as a trainer in the 1980's. RV had no record of this. It now concedes that he was registered.
2. Mr Collins completed a Certificate III in Racing (Advanced Stablehand) in November 2006 and a Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) in 2015.
3. Mr Collins was interviewed by officers of RV concerning his knowledge and successfully answered most of the questions. His assessment form is marked 'not bad'. However, evidence was given by Mr Frank De Rango, Senior Advisor Dispute Resolution of RV that an above average score was required. He described this as a 100% correct result being required. No evidence was given as to what the average result was.
4. I am not satisfied that a 100% correct result is a reasonable requirement. Mr Collins' result satisfies me that he displayed a substantial level of knowledge.
5. As for Mr Collins' experience, I am satisfied from his evidence and references that he has sufficient practical experience reasonably required to carry on the vocation of a trainer.

1. Mr Collins' financial resources provide him with more of a problem. Among the requirements of the Policy is that of providing six months' worth of bank statements. Some bank statements (now out of date) were provided. They showed that Mr Collins was not in a good financial situation.
2. Mr Collins gave evidence that he had $66,000 in superannuation but that he had promised his ex-spouse that he would retain that for his children. He also claimed that his present partner would give 'surety' of $20,000 if required. She also gave evidence to that effect. However, this is an informal arrangement and one which I do not consider to be sufficiently secure to improve Mr Collins' financial situation. He must be personally able to meet commitments as and when they fall due.
3. Mr Collins gave evidence that he did not present any bank statements or superannuation statement to the Tribunal as he did not think that this was necessary. Given that Mr Collins was legally represented in this review, I find his evidence on this to be disingenuous.
4. Mr Collins was reluctant to disclose his true financial position other than to say that he was a pensioner and that he did not like putting money into his bank account. He expressed the view that his financial affairs were none of RV's business.
5. RV has set a figure of $10,000 to be available to a trainer to cover expenses as and when they arise. I consider this figure to be reasonable.
6. I am not comfortably satisfied that Mr Collins has the financial resources sufficient to meet RV's policy requirements in this regard.

[1] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[4] [2013] VSCA 305; (2013) 42 VR 176.

[5] King v Greyhound Racing Victoria [2016] VCAT 701, Kavanagh v Racing Victoria Limited [2017] VCAT 386.