7 Comments Commercial law, litigation, contracts, IP, property law
I have a problem understanding your question - If they are a regulatory body and they are acting over something that the person or property is involved with, then they must believe that this falls under their area of regulation. What do the regulations say?
I could understand your question if, for example, the body had authority in respect to horse racing and they entered a car racing grounds, but without any details it's too hard to give a sensible reply.
In what way do you believe it does not fall to them to address this matter?
You are going to have to give a little more detail, to help us answer your question.
OK...Racing NSW Stewards are demanding entry to property and repossessing ex-racehorses, on very flimsy grounds (i.e. a torn rug) that have been sold/given on to non-racing homes.
Does RNSW have any jurisdiction over non-racing participants and does the presence of an ex-racehorse on any property give their Stewards right of entry, unannounced or otherwise.
When officially 'retiring' any thoroughbred that has been registered for racing trainers/owners, since the introduction of a new rule late last year, are supposed to be signing paper work granting the NSW Stewards the right to inspect that horse and full details of the purchaser. I don't see how I can grant that right once the horse has been sold it is not my property, it is no longer under RNSW jurisdiction and I would assume that their actions should be regarded as trespass and theft.
Obviously the RSPCA has the right to act to protect any neglected animal as they should but they have to adhere to strict guidelines and act within the laws of the state. RNSW acts alone and unregulated. There is no such action or rules in any other state.
Thanks for replying.
Thank you, I guess they believe that they do have these powers, and could I suggest that they probably do. I expect that the act was seriously amended after the Fine Cotton incident, to ensure such fraud can never happen again.
However all I can suggest is that you ask them for full details, in writing, of the authority they are relying on when making these demands.
In the meantime, take a look at This page and these powers to see if you can find something that says they are acting outside their authority.
Perhaps someone with knowledge of the racing industry may be able to give a detailed answer.
Don't see what the Fine Cotton affair could possibly have to do with repossessing retired racehorses.
Effectively this rule gives RNSW the power to do anything:
w) take such steps and do such acts and things as are incidental or conducive to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions
But my question is where do the Laws of NSW come in. And back to the original question - is any thoroughbred now a possession of and under the control of RNSW - and therefore not able to be commercially sold to a party outside of racing?
[QUOTE=Foxrace1] Don't see what the Fine Cotton affair could possibly have to do with repossessing retired racehorses.[/QUOTE]
I accept that you are unable to see this, but rest assured it is a distinct possibility.Who knows where ringin's are sourced.
[QUOTE=Foxrace1]Effectively this rule gives RNSW the power to do anything:[/QUOTE]
If you read the link I added in my last post, you will see that is almost the case, the government has given Racing NSW almost limitless powers. For example see clause 1
[QUOTE] Racing NSW has power to do all things that may be necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the exercise of its functions.[/QUOTE]
This means that if Racing NSW says they need to seize a retired racehorse to investigate some matter, then they have the power to do that.
Seems crazy but we mere mortals have no way of knowing whats going on and how they act to police the racing industry.
I can't answer your question, it depends what Racing NSW decide, it appears the government have given them the power to decide this, why not ask them?
citizen-joe 2018-10-14 13:19:32
So, you are saying, RNSW possesses the ability to enter any property, seize any ex-racehorse at any time, even if its owner has never been involved with racing, the horse may have been retired for a decade and the current owner has full title to the horse.
Because this revelation would terrify thousands of ex-racehorse owners who have spent considerable money on their charges and would view them as an (often much loved) asset under their ownership and control. This would also seriously jeopardise the re-sale / rehoming market for ex-racehorses as this form of control does not exist over any other equines or animals that I am aware of.
Thanks for your opinion. It does explain the extent of the licence that the totalitarian RNSW regime has and exactly why they are able to remove people's possessions and livelihoods at will.
[QUOTE=Foxrace1] So, you are saying, RNSW possesses the ability to enter any property, seize any ex-racehorse at any time, even if its owner has never been involved with racing, the horse may have been retired for a decade and the current owner has full title to the horse.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, but their site states that they have "power to do all things that may be necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the exercise of its functions"
Only a court could determine if that includes what you are saying.
citizen-joe 2018-10-14 19:12:44