NZTR Cost Submission

12) The Rules of Racing in Part Xll dealing with appeals details specific provisions before an appeal can be heard. Rule 1201(3)(a)-(e) as referred to in submissions by NZTR at the appeal hearing are definitive and require, first that - "Where upon the determination of an information by the Judicial Committee ...." and secondly - the Racing Act under Clause 20 of Schedule 3 deal with the Right of Appeal - "Any person property entitled by ....."
With those provisions made clearly known to Mr Middeldorp he has continued with the endeavour to seek permission to lay an information against the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing to have him charged. Mr Middeldorp failed to take notice of his own legal advice where it was suggested that NZROF "Make a written complaint to Thoroughbred Racing about non payment of the levy ...."
NZTR has read the submissions on costs filed by Mr Middeldorp. The contents of his submissions are with respect, pure opinions and suppositions that are inconsistent with the Rules of Racing and the process required to be followed to seek leave to file for a ruling. He has failed to comprehend that there must first be a hearing before a Judicial Committee where an information has been laid and a decision made, before an appeal can be heard (Rule 1201). Rule 1202 refers to "Any person or body wishing to appeal against any other decision in respect of which an appeal may be brought under these rules." It is submitted that an appeal is not able to be brought under these rules because it does not comply with the provisions of Rule 1201. In the first instance the Judicial Committee did not consider leave should be granted to file for an information and having decided that and where no information has been laid there is no right of appeal. Failing that restriction the industry could face the prospects that any person could seek leave to appeal any issue on any decision, be it penalty or otherwise, which would put the industry to imaginable waste of time, effort and costs that are impossible to predict.
The issues on this matter are explicit as stated in Rule 405(3) and Mr Middeldorp has failed to accept sound advice on the issues of both the NZTR and the Judicial Control Authority.
It is submitted that by his own admission Mr Middeldorp is on a one man crusade to seek permission to charge an individual, when quite clearly no breach of the rules has been committed. It has been made painfully clear to Mr Middeldorp that at all times the
Chief Executive of NZTR was acting in accord with the direction of the Board of NZTR.
In summary NZTR has made every endeavour to explain and assist Mr Middeldorp through the issues. He was made aware of the reasons the levy was held by NZTR on the request of Executive members of NZROF until they resolved their own issues. He was advised the process he was following was not appropriate, and in fact not permitted by the Rules of Racing. The issues he sought a ruling on were not a raceday matter, for a Raceday Judicial Committee to consider. The rules provide for a process for non raceday matters to be inquired into, processed and if appropriate, placed before a Judicial Committee.
The legal advice obtained by Mr Middeldorp on this process is I submit, flawed, presumptuous in its outcome, and biased about the process of the Rules of Racing.