The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
Hammond Nguyen Turnbull is proud to have acted in a significant and long-awaited victory for champion harness racing driver Greg Bennett, who has been cleared to return to the sulky following a successful appeal before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Our Special Counsel, Peter Morris, instructed Mr Murdoch of King's Counsel for the Applicant in proceedings that mark one of the most important integrity and licensing decisions in recent harness racing history. After a 14-year absence from the industry, seeking a fresh start, Mr Bennett applied to be licensed in Queensland. When the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) refused his application, the matter proceeded to QCAT on appeal. The Tribunal undertook a detailed review of the history of the matter, the prior criminal proceedings, the integrity investigation process, and Mr Bennett’s character and conduct over many years. In a carefully reasoned decision, the Tribunal made several important findings: Mr Bennett had previously been found not guilty of criminal charges, including matters relating to the alleged production of his mobile phone. He was not charged with corruption. The only live issue relied upon to challenge his fitness to hold a licence was the historic “iPhone issue.” Evidence showed Mr Bennett had been consistent in his account over many years regarding the phone and his lack of knowledge of the broader scandal. No evidence was produced to the Tribunal contradicting his account. Witnesses gave uncontested evidence that he is mentally and physically fit, possesses the requisite skills and knowledge, and would be a positive contributor to the industry. Both NSW and Queensland authorities had already accepted his involvement in the industry as an owner, reflecting a level of ongoing trust. The Tribunal recognised his previously sound record, lengthy period of disqualification, and time away from the industry. Critically, the Tribunal also found that the process used to obtain evidence concerning Mr Bennett’s mobile phone had been so affected by irregularities that it led to “inexact proofs and indefinite testimony.” After considering the totality of the evidence, QCAT concluded that Mr Bennett is a fit and proper person to hold a Harness Racing Grade A Driver Licence. The Tribunal therefore: Set aside QRIC’s decision to refuse his application, and Substituted its own decision that Mr Bennett is eligible to be licensed. This ruling clears the way for one of the sport’s most accomplished drivers to return to competition after more than a decade in exile. Why This Decision Matters This decision is significant well beyond one individual. It reinforces that: Licensing decisions must be based on reliable and properly obtained evidence Historical allegations cannot be allowed to overshadow clear findings of good character and fitness without a proper evidentiary foundation Racing participants are entitled to procedural fairness, particularly where their livelihood and reputation are at stake For many in the industry, the outcome represents a long-overdue recognition that Mr Bennett’s continued exclusion was no longer justified. HNT – Experience in Racing and Integrity Matters Hammond Nguyen Turnbull regularly advises and represents trainers, drivers, owners, and other participants in: Stewards’ inquiries Integrity and rule breach proceedings Licensing disputes Appeals and tribunal reviews These matters are complex, highly specialised, and often career-defining. Early, strategic legal advice can make a critical difference to the outcome. If you are facing a racing integrity investigation or licensing issue, our team has the experience to guide you through the process and protect your interests.
Hammond Nguyen Turnbull recently acted for homeowners in a contested building dispute before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), resulting in a money order in favour of the clients. The matter concerned defective residential building work carried out under a renovation and extension contract. Following a fully contested hearing, the Tribunal found in favour of the homeowners on every disputed defect item, preferring the evidence and methodology of the homeowners’ expert over that of the builder. The Tribunal also preferred a money order over a work order. Key Findings The Tribunal accepted that the builder breached statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) , including failing to: Perform work with due care and skill Carry out work in accordance with approved plans and specifications The Tribunal rejected the builder’s request to rectify the works themselves and instead awarded a money order, allowing the homeowners to engage alternative contractors. In considering whether a work order or money order should be granted, the Tribunal considered a money order to be the preferred outcome in consideration of: The builder not evidencing any measures put into place to avoid the defective works occurring again; The lack of communication from the builder prior to the commencement of the proceedings; and The lack of confidence that the builder would ‘do the right thing’. Expert Evidence Was Critical The Tribunal accepted the homeowners’ expert evidence in full, describing the expert as “impressive” and noting his detailed methodology, practical experience, and reliable costings. The builder’s expert evidence was given significantly less weight. This decision highlights the importance of early expert engagement and strategic case preparation in building disputes. Why This Decision Matters This case reinforces that: Builders must strictly follow approved plans unless a written variation exists Defective work does not need to cause water ingress to breach statutory warranties Rectification by the builder is not automatic where confidence has broken down Well-prepared claims supported by expert evidence can succeed Need Advice on a Building Dispute? NCAT is designed to be an accessible forum, but navigating the procedural rules, evidence requirements, and complex building law principles requires specialised knowledge. Attempting to represent oneself against a builder's legal team often leads to frustration and inadequate compensation. Our firm's expertise in building and construction law means we can: Properly frame the legal claim to maximise the chances of success. Identify and instruct the right expert witnesses. Effectively manage evidence and cross-examination within the Tribunal setting. Negotiate from a position of strength during mediation or compulsory conferences. If you are dealing with defective building work or an uncooperative builder, early legal advice can make all the difference.
