1. The decision of Racing Victoria Limited to refuse to issue a renewed trainer licence to Mr Murfet is affirmed.

Mr Scott Hunter, in house counsel, Racing Victoria Limited.

1. Mr Murfet applied to Racing Victoria Limited ('RVL') for a renewed trainer's licence for the racing year 2023/24.
2. His application was initially refused on the basis that he had not met the relevant condition of his licence (and policy) which required a trainer to achieve a minimum of one satisfactorily competitive race starter per racing season ('minimum runner requirement').[1]
3. The matter was remitted to RVL for reconsideration by the Tribunal under section 51A of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ('VCAT Act') to enable RVL to consider further documentation from Mr Murfet.
4. During this process, Mr Murfet sought to demonstrate there was a medical reason why he was unable to meet the minimum runners criteria.
5. As part of its reconsideration, RVL requested further information from Mr Murfet.[2] It sought a national police record certificate, bank statements from the previous 12 months, a credit record check from an accredited agency and documentation demonstrating access to working capital or overdraft of $15,000+.
6. This was in addition to confirming stables location for an inspection.
7. Mr Murfet refused to provide the financial information and police check since he considered it irrelevant to the issue of whether it was appropriate to renew his trainer licence. He also suggested in correspondence that this information was outside the scope of RVL's policy.
8. In these circumstances, RVL was not in a position to reconsider its decision and the matter was listed for final hearing.
9. Mr Murfet now seeks review of RVL's confirmed refusal to grant him a trainer licence for the 'relevant racing year' under section 83Q of the Racing Act 1958 (Victoria). He claims he is a suitable person to be licensed for the current racing year, based on his experience, integrity and capacity.
10. I say the 'relevant racing year' because the racing season Mr Murfet had sought to be licensed for has passed.
11. I asked the parties how they consider I should approach this temporal issue.
12. RVL responded, and Mr Murfet agreed, that if I was persuaded to direct the grant of a licence, it should be for the current training year i.e. 2025/26 in order for the decision to have utility.
13. Ultimately, for reasons that follow, I do not need to form a concluded view on this.

Further documentation provided after the hearing

1. I provided an opportunity to the parties to make submissions on two cases of potential relevance that I had identified following the hearing, in addition to the Suitability Policy of RVL.[3] I directed parties to limit submissions to these matters.
2. I did not expressly provide an opportunity for Mr Murfet to provide any additional information about his financial capacity or current health situation because he responded at the hearing that he did not want to provide the former, while the latter was accepted by RVL on the basis of the information in the Tribunal Book.
3. Notwithstanding, since these issues may bear on my determination, I have accepted this additional information, subject to providing RVL with an opportunity to respond.[4]
4. Mr Murfet provided a host of further information, including supporting statements and additional financial information. Subsequently, he also provided a 'clean' credit check and a National Police Check revealing 'no disclosable court outcomes'.
5. He also provided a signed form allegedly indicating his intention to withdraw $20,000 from his superannuation fund (bearing in mind he has achieved legal 'retirement age').

1. In response to my questions at the hearing, RVL confirmed that:
   • it accepts that there was a valid medical reason (supported by documentation in the amended Tribunal Book) why Mr Murfet was unable to meet the requirement in the policy for a minimum number of runners in the years preceding the licence application;
   • it does not take issue with Mr Murfet's medical or other capacity to work as a licensed trainer; and
   • it accepts that Mr Murfet is of suitable character and experience to hold a trainer's licence.
2. Notwithstanding these concessions, RVL submitted that Mr Murfet has been unable to demonstrate that he is a suitable person to hold a trainer's licence since he has not provided evidence of a criminal record check and has not demonstrated the financial resources to carry out the vocation of training racehorses, in line with the provisions of the Trainer Policy.
3. The current version of the Trainer Policy is the document entitled 'Trainer Licensing Policy - issued 1 August 2019 (revised 1 August 2025) ('Trainer Policy').[5]
4. Mr Murfet initially reiterated his position that these matters are irrelevant to a properly founded review of RVL's refusal to grant him a licence.
5. When I asked if he would be prepared to provide this information if I considered it relevant, he declined on the same basis.
6. In response to my questions as to how I should conclude that he is a suitable person to hold this category of licence, Mr Murfet responded on a number of occasions that I should exercise 'lenience' in his favour.
7. As explained, Mr Murfet has now elected to seek to fill the deficiencies alleged by RVL by providing further information.
8. As a result, RVL confirmed it accepts that Mr Murfet is a suitable person to the extent that he does not have a criminal record.
9. However, it maintained its position that the correct or preferable decision is to refuse Mr Murfet's application for renewal. It claims he has not demonstrated his current suitability since he has not been able to indicate adequate financial capacity to carry out the vocation of race horse training responsibly.

1. The key issue remaining for my determination in this proceeding is the scope of relevant considerations in an application for review against a refusal to grant a trainer's licence.
2. More specifically, is financial capacity a valid consideration when applying for a licence to train thoroughbred horses, particularly after a hiatus of a number of years? I conclude that it is.
3. I then assess the substance of available documentation on these issues but conclude that I have insufficient material before me to support a decision to grant Mr Murfet a trainer's licence at the current time.
4. On this basis, it is appropriate to affirm the decision of RVL as regulator.

1. The Racing Act 1958 (Vic) ('Racing Act') governs the system of occupational licences that can be issued by RVL.
2. An occupational racing licence is defined as any licence, registration, permit or other authority required under the rules made by a controlling body for a person to participate in any occupation in racing.[6] It includes trainer licences.
3. Section 83Q(b)(i) provides a right of review in respect of a decision to refuse to renew an occupational racing licence.
4. On review, under section 51(2) of the VCAT Act, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision of RVL. If it determines to set aside the decision, it may substitute its own decision or remit the application to the original decision maker.
5. The Rules of Racing of Racing Victoria ('Rules') comprise the Australian Rules of Racing made by the Australian Racing Board ('AR') and the Local Rules and Rules of Race Betting of Racing Victoria ('LR').
6. Under AR 97, a person can only train a horse at a registered racecourse, training track or training facility if they have been issued with a licence or permit to train from the applicable principal racing authority - RVL in this instance. LR 24A(1A) provides different categories of training licences.
7. Mr Murfet seeks an unrestricted licence in this proceeding.
8. Under LR 24A(3), the directors of RVL may generate the Racing Victoria Trainer Licensing Policy to prescribe educational qualifications, experience and any other pre-requisite or requirement for the grant of a licence to train as deemed appropriate for each category of licence.
9. The Trainer Policy specifies that it is 'applicable to licensed Trainers and persons applying for a Trainer Licence'.
10. LR 24B provides that meeting the requirements of the Trainer Policy 'is a pre-requisite to the grant to a person of a licence to train'.
11. Clause 3 sets out general requirements for the grant of any licence to train including relevant experience, age, adequate stable facilities, financial resources, suitability and any examination that may be required.
12. Clause 3(f) of the Trainer Policy provides:

In addition to any specific requirements set out in this Policy or in the Rules, it is a requirement for the grant of any license to train (including training partnerships) that the person:

...

f) Financial requirements: 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.

1. The directors of RVL may also prescribe any other pre-requisite or requirement not set out within the policy, if deemed appropriate.[7]
2. LR 24A(4) provides the directors of RVL with discretion to relieve an applicant from any requirement if there are exceptional circumstances.
3. Mr Murfet sought such relief in respect of the minimum runner requirements in Clause 3.1 of the policy[8], and this was supported by RVL in the reconsidered decision.
4. Clause 4 sets out more detailed requirements for the grant of a trainer licence. Relevant to the issues in dispute in this proceeding, sub-clause (b) requires an applicant to 'satisfy RVL that they are a suitable person to be granted a Trainer Licence by meeting the Training Experience and Criteria requirements outlined at 4.2 and 4.3'.
5. In this instance, RVL accepts that Mr Murfet has met the training experience requirement in Clause 4.2.
6. The dispute centres around the refusal of Mr Murfet to provide any response to details requested under Clause 4.3 of the Trainer Policy.
7. Clause 4.3 relevantly provides:

In assessing whether an Applicant is suitable to be granted or continue to hold a Trainer Licence, RVL will take into account the following criteria:

. . .

(d) Financial Resources Documents: the Applicant must provide the following documents to the satisfaction of RVL:

(i) Profit and Loss Budget or Statement (as applicable);

(ii) Balance Sheet;

(iii) Accountant Reference;

(iv) Statements of Accounts from Industry Suppliers (e.g. thoroughbred sales, feed, veterinarians);

(v) Three (3) Industry Supplier Credit References (in writing);

(vi) Any bank statements as requested by RVL (minimum of 12 months' worth);

(vii) Credit Report from an accredited credit reporting agency;

(viii) Any documents relevant to an Insolvency Event, including a Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Statement for the relevant period, a statement explaining the circumstances leading to the Insolvency Event, details of creditors and any repayment/s, and ongoing updates where relevant; and

(ix) Working capital or overdraft of $15,000+ . . .

1. In addition, the Suitability Policy applies to all categories of licenses.
2. A relevant criterion in Clause 3a) of the Suitability Policy is 'whether the applicant has ever been convicted of any criminal offence (in Australia or any foreign jurisdiction)' and at b), 'whether the applicant is or has been the subject of any proceedings of a criminal nature' in Australia or overseas.
3. RVL explained that a request for a police check is a standard operating requirement for the regulator.
4. A person's criminal history may bear on a person's suitability to hold a trainer's licence. This is an area that is highly regulated and where personal character and integrity forms part of the licensing process.
5. This has now been suitably addressed in respect of Mr Murfet.

1. As mentioned, RVL accepts that Mr Murfet has requisite training and experience for the role. It further accepts there was a genuine medical reason for him failing to meet the expected minimum number of runners.
2. The evidence in the Tribunal Book and the sworn evidence of Mr Murfet at the hearing support this view.
3. This includes statements from his treating medical practitioners that he is now physically fit to conduct the role of racehorse trainer, potentially with the assistance of a track work assistant.
4. He also obtained a statement from his treating psychologist that he is fit for the role after substantial treatment.
5. I accept this position.
6. Mr Murfet gave evidence that, beyond his physical and mental capacity for the role, he is suitable for re-licensing because he:
   • has spent approximately 54 years working in the industry. He started as an apprentice jockey in 1971, becoming a stablehand trainer some four years later. He has worked in racehorse training since that time, until his significant horse-related accident in October 2021;
   • is of good character and integrity and would promote the reputation of Racing Victoria;
   • has a 'clean record' in all his years of working in the industry; and
   • already provided all relevant financial information and a criminal record check to RVL when originally licensed, and again approximately 8-10 years ago after seeking a licence to train his own horses (after working in Macedon Lodge, a professional stable).
7. He submitted that in the absence of demonstrated misconduct or other ongoing suitability, it would therefore be appropriate to renew his licence. He now relies on the additional information submitted in the proceeding.
8. He has now also provided letters of support from race horse owners who would be prepared to provide a horse for him to train, and he has advised of his intention to lease stables at a particular location.
9. Notwithstanding, RVL submitted that I could not be satisfied of Mr Murfet's suitability to hold a trainer's licence in the absence of relevant financials as requested by it.
10. It explained that Mr Murfet has not been 'singled out' in this way, since RVL requests this type of information when circumstances of applicants change. It is not only required when a licence is granted for the first time, as reflected in the wording of Clause 4.3 of the policy which includes assessing whether an applicant is suitable to 'continue to hold' a trainer licence. It explained that because licences are issued annually, effectively, renewal of a licence is tantamount to the grant of a new licence for each racing season.
11. I note that Mr Murfet was first granted a licence many decades ago. He has not been licensed since approximately July 2023 and has not actively trained horses since his accident in October 2021.
12. Circumstances of an applicant that may give rise to such a request from RVL may include a change to criminal history, a hiatus from the vocation, an insolvency event or the like. The request of Mr Murfet was also said to be less rigorous than the full suite of material RVL could have requested of him, even for a licence renewal.
13. RVL submitted orally at the hearing that it is aware of instances where the challenges of the cost of living (including the high cost of feeding and caring for horses) has made it difficult for some licence holders to meet their ongoing obligations.
14. It considered that in the context of Mr Murfet's refusal to provide this information, both it and the Tribunal were 'largely in the dark' about his financial resources and general suitability for the licence.
15. In submissions in response to the additional information provided by Mr Murfet, RVL took the view that:

...there is no evidence before the Tribunal to corroborate Mr Murfet's assertion that he owns his house outright, and importantly, has access to adequate funds, should it be necessary, to support both his personal needs and business commitments.

The role of the Tribunal in review proceedings of this type

1. Significantly, when reviewing a decision to refuse to renew a licence, the Tribunal needs to consider all relevant matters afresh to arrive at the correct or preferable decision.[9]
2. This is because it is in the nature of a 'de novo' review which effectively puts the Tribunal in the place of the original decision maker.
3. Therefore, in determining what are relevant considerations, the Tribunal in not limited to consideration of the original reason for refusal by RVL as the initial decision maker. Mr Murfet refers to this as the 'minimum runner requirement' not being met.
4. Instead, the Tribunal's role is to determine whether the applicant is a suitable person for renewal of his trainer licence at the time of its decision.
5. This is to be assessed having regard to the civil standard of proof in the context of occupational licensing matters.
6. I note that even if the Tribunal was limited to considering only the original reason for refusal, RVL has since raised concerns that it, and the Tribunal on review, cannot be satisfied of Mr Murfet's financial ability to meet the requirements of a licensed trainer.
7. This issue is squarely before the Tribunal for consideration, although the weight to be given to this factor in determining Mr Murfet's overall suitability for a renewed licence is a matter in the Tribunal's discretion.

Is Mr Murfet a suitable person to hold a renewed trainer's licence?

1. There are a number of different aspects that contribute to a person's suitability to hold a trainer's licence.
2. Some elements are akin to the 'fit and proper person test' for a licence as outlined in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond. This test was affirmed by the Tribunal as 'highly relevant' in Quadara.[10] It observed:

The authorities relating to that concept place emphasis on capacity to carry out the functions the licence involves and on matters of character and propriety relevant to the particular industry or profession.

1. In this case, the relevant context for consideration is the highly regulated industry of horse racing.
2. In the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Racing Victoria Limited v Riley, the Court noted from the outset:[11]

Horse racing in in Australia is a highly regulated industry. This is hardly surprising, given the high level of public interest and participation and the consequent need to maintain public confidence in the industry. As has long been recognised, regulation is necessary both to ensure fair and open competition in racing and to maintain the health and wellbeing of horses and their jockeys.

1. It is apparent from applicable rules and policies that all licence holders, especially trainers, are expected to uphold high personal, professional and technical standards to protect equine health and the integrity of the racing industry.
2. The Tribunal in Quadara accepted that 'the grant of a licence to train is a privilege and the strict requirements in the Policy recognise the importance of maintaining public confidence in the racing industry'.[12]
3. Mr Murfet has been a race horse trainer for an extensive period of time. He has satisfied the RVL and, in turn the Tribunal, that he has requisite training and experience to hold a trainer's licence.
4. He has medical reports that demonstrate that he has capacity to carry out the day-to-day requirements of the role, potentially with some assistance if required.
5. I give credit to his commitment to improving his physical and mental health following his unfortunate accident.
6. Mr Murfet gave evidence that his health has continued to improve since the time of those reports and anticipates he will be able to train horses without assistance from a track worker on some occasions, such that this would not be a necessary condition of any potential approval.
7. This is not entirely clear at the current time, but this issue is not determinative given the other more substantial concern I have with Mr Murfet's lack of demonstrated financial suitability. This also includes the need to demonstrate capacity to pay a track worker if required.
8. To the extent that the Trainer Policy is a policy and does not contain immutable requirements, I consider the aspect of the policy requiring demonstrated financial capacity to be sound in light of the objectives of racing in Victoria.
9. RVL submitted that:

The Tribunal has previously accepted that it is reasonable for Racing Victoria to adopt and use a monetary figure applicable to all applicants, now $15,000 over a 12-month period, as a clear and objective indication of a person's ability to set aside sufficient funds to ensure that debts can be paid as and when they fall due, and measure financial viability.

1. In Murray v Racing Victoria Limited[13] the Tribunal affirmed the decision of RVL to refuse to grant a restricted trainer's licence on the basis that the applicant had not met the financial requirement. At that time, the requirement was for evidence of a consistent bank balance of $10,000 for a six month period.
2. I note that in that case, some evidence of financial viability had been provided, but it was not regarded as sufficient to meet the requirement. It is not dissimilar to the current circumstances in this regard and also since the applicant in that case had taken a break from the occupation due to personal reasons.
3. As to the relevance of the financial requirement bearing on suitability to hold a trainer's licence, the Tribunal held:[14]

This case only concerns the financial resources requirement. It has been made clear by Racing Victoria that is the only outstanding matter. Mr Murray meets all other requirements including experience and character.

VCAT has recently stated that it is reasonable for Racing Victoria to adopt and use the $10,000 requirement - Collins v Racing Victoria Ltd (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 700. I agree.

...

The logic, which I accept, is that setting a figure of $10,000 shown to be available in the applicant's bank accounts for a period of six months is a clear and objective indication of the ability to set aside sufficient funds to ensure that debts can be paid as and when they fall due. It is clearly in the interests of the industry that debts are paid promptly.

It is also a way of measuring financial viability that, as Ms Hughes said, is simply to explain, easily verified, and able to be applied to all applicants, which is itself desirable.

Mr Murray's submissions were in part an argument as to why the $10,000 requirement was unnecessary in his case. As submitted by Racing Victoria however, a trainer's licence is a little like a drivers licence or other vocational licences that have certain requirements. Racing Victoria have the power to impose the requirement. It is, in my view, a reasonable requirement.

1. The current Trainer Policy provides for a minimum $15,000 of working capital.
2. While training and experience are a necessary requirement for the ability to train thoroughbred horses (as proposed), so too is the ability to demonstrate financial viability to conduct the activity in line with the rigorous standards of the industry.
3. In this respect, I note the capacity for a licenced trainer to lease and operate stables as Mr Murfet now proposes.
4. Adequate financial resources are vital to ensure equine health and proper operations. An absence of this also has the capacity to affect the overall credibility of the industry in the eyes of the public.
5. RVL clarified in submissions:

...Whilst it is acknowledged that training operations can vary in size, including horses in work and related expenditure, it is uncontroversial to submit that keeping a horse is expensive, having regard to the basic health and welfare requirements, including the purchase of feed and supplements, training gear and other items, provision of farrier/dental/veterinary treatment, and maintenance of a suitable training premises. Trainers are generally required to bear such costs upfront. In addition, they are required to pay licence fees, maintain public liability insurance, rent stables, pay staff wages and other office expenses (as applicable). A single racehorse in training can cost as much as $3,500-4,000 per month.

1. In my opinion, demonstrating adequate financial resources is an integral part of demonstrating suitability for the vocation proposed to be licensed.
2. The Trainer Policy specifically provides at Clause 4 that, when considering an application for a licence or 'to continue to hold a licence', RVL can request a broad suite of documentation pertaining to the applicant's financial or business affairs, amongst other things.
3. Mr Murfet was 'put on notice' by RVL and subsequently by the Tribunal that this may bear on an ability to make a finding about his suitability for the licence.
4. I find that this request was especially valid in circumstances where Mr Murfet has not run any horses in races since 2021 and has taken a break since, albeit for principally medical reasons.
5. During this time, or at least in the last 8-10 years (being the last date Mr Murfet claimed to provide information of this type to RVL), it is possible that his circumstances have changed in other aspects of his life that will bear or reflect on his suitability to hold the licence.

1. The bank statements provided by Mr Murfet indicate a significantly reduced amount of funds compared with the benchmark of $15,000. They do not at any time exceed $3,000, even for Mr Murfet's personal living expenses.[15]
2. While he has provided a recent credit check, this is a high level assessment that would only be expected to flag significant issues of default or the like. It does not indicate a current ability to meet debts as and when they fall due.
3. Mr Mufet then explained he would transfer $20,000 from his superannuation account, noting that he claimed his house was fully paid off.
4. I provided an express opportunity to demonstrate that he had been able to access funds to $15,000 or greater.
5. The only additional material provided in this regard was his confirmed intention to make this transfer, supported by a signed request form to his superannuation fund.
6. However, there is no evidence before me that this request has been lodged with the superannuation fund or acted on in any way (aside from being prepared) and, more pertinently, there is no further evidence of this money being available in one of Mr Murfet's accessible bank accounts.
7. I accept RVL's further submission that 'even if Mr Murfet's bank account was to receive a cash injection at this time, a one-time payment says nothing about Mr Murfet's ability to maintain such a balance over an extended period of time (i.e. 6-12 months)'.
8. Good faith is not sufficient because of the potential consequences to animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and Mr Murfet's own ability to carry out the vocation responsibly.
9. On this basis, I cannot be satisfied that Mr Murfet has been able to demonstrate that he has financial capacity to responsibly undertake the vocation for which he seeks to have his license renewed.

1. Mr Murfet has demonstrated some key elements of suitability to hold a current trainer's licence.
2. However, he has fallen short of providing sufficient information to demonstrate financial suitability at this point in time, or moving forward.
3. Having given Mr Murfet multiple opportunities to correct this deficiency, I cannot support his application for renewal.
4. This is also in circumstances where Mr Murfet has not proposed for his licence renewal to be subject to a condition that he can demonstrate a minimum of $15,000 working capital (per annum or even initially).
5. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that he is a suitable person to hold a trainer's licence at this point in time.

1. In a practical sense, Mr Murfet retains the opportunity to apply afresh for a trainer's licence from RVL.
2. If an application is made shortly after this hearing and there has been no relevant change in personal circumstances, it is likely that RVL would be in a position to accept his suitability having regard to all other criteria.
3. He would then need to align his financial affairs in a way that could demonstrate suitability for the vocation to RVL.

[1] In fact, Mr Murfet had not met the requirement in the 2021/22 racing season either but it was only on 15 August 2023 that RVL determined to refuse to renew his licence for the 2023/24 racing season.

[3] Issued by the licensing and compliance unit of RVL on 24 April 2019 and revised on 30 September 2024 ('Suitability Policy').

[4] Refer to Tribunal order dated 7 October 2025.

[5] Provided as an appendix to RVL's written submissions for the hearing.

[6] Section 83P of the Racing Act.

[8] This provides 'in addition to any obligations and conditions as provided by the Rules or this Policy, an Applicant must agree and acknowledge that, following the grant of a Trainer's Licence (including training partnerships), they are required to have a minimum number of starters per racing season, in accordance with the category of licence issued to the Applicant'.

[9] Per Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] 46 FLR 409, as confirmed in the context of racing legislation in Quadara v Racing Victoria Limited (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 50 ('Quadara').

[11] [2016] VSCA 230 at [1].

[13] (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 1377.

[14] As above, at [36] and [40], [42-44].

[15] As at 2 October 2025, available assets in the relevant Commonwealth bank account were only $1,040.66, which has fallen over time compared with a statement dated 1 May 2025.