For the reasons above, I affirm the decision of Racing Victoria to refuse to grant the licence. My decision does not prevent Mr Murray from reapplying to Racing Victoria in the future.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Murray
Respondent/Defendant:
Racing Victoria Limited
Cases Cited (2)
Murray v Racing Victoria Limited (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 1377 (31 August 2017)
Part 3 of the Licensing Policy sets out the general requirements for a training licence. They include experience, age, financial resources, character and any examination required.
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.
In particular, it is apparent from the documents in evidence that Mr Murray is well regarded in the industry by people he has worked with, well qualified with good experience and has a good reputation within the industry. None of those things are under any question today.
The heart of the financial resources issue is the $10,000 requirement. There is no suggestion that the business is not otherwise financially viable. It is evident that as a family, the Murray family have the resources to ensure that the business remains financial viable.
Mr Murray, however, does not meet the requirement.
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.
I accept that Mr Murray did not understand the logic of the requirement and believed that the other evidence he provided should be sufficient.
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.
I accept that, unfortunately, Mr Murray thought that there was no point in establishing a $10,000 bank balance in the period leading up to the review hearing. There is no doubt that if, as at the date of hearing, he had been able to show a continuous $10,000 balance for a six month hearing, it is likely that his review application would have been successful.