Racing NSW to Appeal Court Ruling That Invalidated ATC Administrator Appointment

Racing NSW moved to challenge a NSW Supreme Court ruling that dismantled its attempt to install an administrator at the Australian Turf Club, announcing the appeal less than 48 hours after Justice François Kunc declared the December 2025 appointment "invalid and of no effect" in a decision that exposed the limits of the regulator's statutory authority over Australia's largest race club.

The judgment, handed down on 11 March 2026 in Australian Turf Club Ltd v Racing NSW (No 2) NSWSC 184, found that Racing NSW had acted outside its legal authority when it appointed Morgan Kelly of Ernst & Young to run the ATC. The case, heard over three days in February, turned on whether the regulator could use its powers under the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 to intervene in the club's financial management and corporate governance.

Justice Kunc ruled it could not. The court held that Racing NSW's statutory function under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, to "control, supervise and regulate in New South Wales the racing of galloping horses as referred to in the Australian Rules of Racing," extended only to the actual racing of horses, not to a race club's finances or board conduct. The legislature, Kunc found, gave Racing NSW power over horse racing, not over race clubs as corporate legal entities. He also rejected Racing NSW's argument that Section 11 of the Act, which requires the body to act in the public interest and in the interests of the industry as a whole, provided a separate or broader basis for the appointment.

A second ground compounded the defeat. Even if the Act had authorised the appointment, Kunc found the decision would still have been invalid because it relied on a material misreading of accounting information supplied by the ATC, constituting a jurisdictional error. The court ordered Racing NSW to pay the ATC's legal costs.

Racing NSW, led by chief executive Peter V'landys, announced the appeal on Friday 13 March via a Chairman's Report, framing the decision as existential for the regulator's role across the state. "After careful consideration, Racing NSW has formed the view that it needs to appeal Wednesday's decision of the NSW Supreme Court due to the precarious position it places Racing NSW in funding race clubs across the State and supporting the 50,000 participants who rely on the NSW thoroughbred racing industry for their livelihoods," the regulator said. In a separate statement, Racing NSW warned that if Kunc's narrow interpretation were to stand, "it could significantly restrict Racing NSW's ability to fund important club activities such as infrastructure, facilities and operational support that underpin racing across NSW," citing risk to 120 race clubs statewide.

ATC chairman Tim Hale said the ruling vindicated the club's resistance to what it had characterised as an improper intrusion. "It is not in the interests of racing for Racing NSW and race clubs to be in conflict. We should be working together," Hale said in a statement to members.

The Racing Reform Group pushed back sharply on Racing NSW's stated rationale for appealing. "Racing NSW's justification, that the Court's decision could impact their ability to fund operations, infrastructure and facilities at race clubs across the state, does not stand up to reasoning," the group said. The RRG pointed instead to the government-commissioned review being conducted by former health minister Brad Hazzard, who is examining the Thoroughbred Racing Act itself. "If there are legitimate concerns about the impact of this week's ruling, they should be addressed in Mr Hazzard's review and the Act can be amended on his recommendation," the group said.

The Hazzard review sits directly at the intersection of the dispute. Brisbanetimes reported that the judgment arrived while that review was still in progress, adding a legislative dimension to what is already a significant governance confrontation in a $3.3 billion industry.

Justice Kunc himself acknowledged the stakes. "Horse racing is a very substantial part of the NSW economy," he said. "This case has highlighted that Racing NSW's power to appoint an administrator is a drastic one which can have a very real impact on hundreds, if not thousands, of people." He noted the judgment would not necessarily resolve the underlying tensions between the regulator and the club. Whether the appeal, the Hazzard review, or a combination of both ultimately redraws those boundaries will define the governance architecture of NSW thoroughbred racing for years to come.