Cover image courtesy of Australian Turf Club
The transcript from the hearing and Justice François Kunc’s written reasons are now available - and together they show why the Supreme Court extended the stay that blocks Racing NSW’s attempted appointment of an administrator over the Australian Turf Club.
Racing NSW spent the hearing pushing one central idea: that the Australian Turf Club is so financially fragile that an administrator must be installed now. But Supreme Court’s ruling highlights what appears to be a central tension in that position.
Justice Kunc observed there was “no evidence that Racing NSW will withdraw its support” and inferred that doing so would “cause real financial harm” - potentially “financial collapse” - and would “negate what Racing NSW says it intends to achieve”.
Hon Justice François Kunc | Image courtesy of Legal Services Council
That is the crux of the insolvency theory: if Racing NSW stops supporting the club, the club’s position could deteriorate quickly. Read in context, the “imminent insolvency” risk described to the Court was closely tied to assumptions about the continuation of discretionary support payments.
It is an unusual feature of the argument, given Racing NSW’s statutory role, because the Thoroughbred Racing Act explicitly states: “It is the duty of each appointed member of Racing NSW to act in the public interest and in the interests of the horse racing industry as a whole in New South Wales.”
That duty makes it reasonable for stakeholders to scrutinise how any discretionary funding position is being framed in Court. If Racing NSW’s argument is understood as relying on Racing NSW reducing support in a way that heightens insolvency risk for the ATC, it is legitimate to ask whether that approach is really in the best interests of horse racing.
It is a particularly important consideration with the Hazzard Review of the Act currently underway.
This hearing was an interlocutory fight - a short, urgent debate about whether the stay should continue until the final hearing. Racing NSW conceded there was a “serious question to be tried”, meaning the contest turned on balance of convenience, not a full determination of who is ultimately right.
The Court has now set the main event: a final hearing in the Expedition List on 19 and 20 February 2026.
Money, money, money
The central plank of Racing NSW’s case was its attempt to emphasise the discretionary nature of the payments that keeps the system running.
The Court noted the “top up” payment given by Racing NSW to the ATC is not paid under any contractual arrangement, and that it is “not specifically required by the marketing agreement”, effectively treating it as discretionary.
As the transcript made clear, the Racing NSW guarantee also sits beneath the $30 million CBA cash advance facility. If Racing NSW were to withdraw its support, the ATC would be pushed toward asset sales to shore up its position. But the Court heard, and the judgment acknowledges, quick asset sales are not ideal nor a clean fix.
The transcript and judgment records submissions that, in an arguably circular structure, selling assets could itself trigger additional liabilities, some of which sit directly with Racing NSW.
In that scenario, Racing NSW’s withdrawal of support would not merely expose the ATC to market risk, but an existing Racing NSW loan would in certain circumstances become repayable upon an asset disposal.
Yet Racing NSW’s own financial statements show very substantial reserves. Its 2024 annual report records $68.8 million “Cash at Bank” and $269.8 million in term deposits with total financial assets listed at ~$397.3m. The 2024–25 annual report shows $61.7 million in cash and cash equivalents.
That’s precisely why the argument is so perplexing: Racing NSW says ATC insolvency is a real risk, while also telling the Court that its stabilising payments are optional. It becomes less a financial inevitability, and more a risk that depends on funding decisions within Racing NSW’s control.
Peter V'Landys | Image courtesy of Racing NSW
CEO Peter V’Landys has proudly stated Racing NSW’s financial power in broader settings, pointing to “more than $300 million” in reserves. In the Rosehill parliamentary review he stated: “Racing NSW’s initiatives have made the money and now some want the keys to the castle.”
Racing NSW argues its intervention is necessary to protect the industry and address financial fragility. But critics will ask:
If Racing NSW can hold substantial cash and financial assets, why are resources directed toward installing an administrator and not addressing the stabilisation of the system it is legally required to steward?
Why have both Racing NSW and the ATC spent significant industry funds in fighting an expensive legal battle, when those funds could be invested in addressing the very issues being argued?
And why should the industry accept “insolvency risk” framing from the very body with the resources, and statutory role, to prevent instability?
For many participants, the language used around insolvency risk will sound more like rhetorical positioning than a neutral assessment of the underlying numbers.
Against that backdrop, and so soon after the Rosehill sale vote, Racing NSW portraying itself as a reluctant saviour - forced into drastic action because the ATC might be at risk - is a characterisation many participants are unlikely to accept. Particularly when the Court itself found the risk was not imminent, and that the ATC’s efforts to address its position “should not be interrupted” before the substantive hearing.
The Court has offered an expedited final hearing on 19 and 20 February 2026. Let’s see if the new year will finally bring a refocus on improving the horse racing industry and positively growing its major club, so that industry money is directed first to the long-term health of racing rather than to prolonged courtroom battles.
