‘Haphazard’ trial slammed

A TOOWOOMBA judge has lashed two racehorse families in a “haphazard” trial over the breeding of several mares with a stallion.

District Court Judge Bernard Porter was scathing in his judgment over the matter, which was between former Toowoomba trainer Ronald Maund and Dovedeen Pty Ltd, the company of breeders Evan and Joan Hartley.

Dovedeen was suing Mr Maund and his wife Karen-Lee for a supposed breach of contract, related to the $4000-amonth care and servicing of six brood mares the Hartleys had bought in 2012.

According to evidence, the mares were bought to earn a deduction on Mr Hartley’s income tax bill.

The plaintiff alleged the Maunds had bred the mares with a stallion called Triumphant Choice without consent, arguing it was a breach of the service contract.

Dovedeen was seeking $138,000 in damages due to the breach, arguing the mares were only worth $2000 each after being bought for a collective $150,000.

In their defence, the Maunds said consent had either been given or implied for the stallion to cover the mares.

What followed was a trial that Judge Porter said had not followed proper procedural guidelines, with the judgment noting both parties had often failed to prepare evidence properly or tender it with the court and the other side in a normal fashion.

Mr Maund was self-represented, which the judge said caused a number of issues when it came time for crossexaminations.

“I mean no disrespect when I say that Mr Maund had a poor grasp of how to ask questions, rather than make statements,” the judgment read.

“It was exceedingly difficult to guide his efforts towards proper questions that were related to the issues.”

But Judge Porter also criticised the performance of Dovedeen’s solicitor, who on several occasions tried to tender documents that “were not even arguably admissible”.

“(The solicitor) opened expert evidence he intended to lead from three witnesses without having given the

Maunds any notice of that,” it read.

“No thought appeared to have been given to questions of admissibility generally, including in respect of expert evidence as already mentioned.”

Judge Porter identified some of the key issues were the particulars of the contract, whether consent was given to service the mares, and whether the servicing caused the mares to lose value.

In his findings, he said while the agreement the two parties had reached was not formalised properly, Mr Hartley did “impliedly consent” to Triumphant

Choice being put to the mares at least once.

Judge Porter also rejected the claim the siring of the mares had caused them to lose value, saying there was no way Dovedeen could’ve known the stallion was poor at the time of the agreement.

“As I have found, Mr Hartley had little interest in the mares once the tax deduction was secured,” he said.

Judge Porter also said a judgment should be entered on the Maunds’ counterclaim for $132,000, which related to the cost of caring for the horses after Dovedeen ceased paying.