Supreme Court overturns Equestrian Australia’s ban on Anthony Thomas but says he must still be disciplined

There’s been a split result in this equestrian’s bid to overturn a three-month ban over social media posts – he won his case, but suffered a loss in the process.

An equestrian’s challenge to his “oppressive” three-month ban from the sport has succeeded – but a judge says he has also admitted misconduct that warrants disciplinary sanction.

In a judgment on Wednesday, the Supreme Court found Equestrian Australia Ltd had breached its own rules and “oppressed” Anthony Thomas under the Corporations Act.

Justice Tim Stanley said the peak body had “contravened their rules and the principles of natural justice” by banning Mr Thomas over complaints made by other members.

However he said that, in fighting the case, Mr Thomas had admitted breaching the organisation’s code of conduct in his actions toward two of those members.

Equestrian Anthony Thomas outside the Supreme Court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

“There is no reason he should not be held to these admissions,” he said.

“No oppression is involved in subjecting him to disciplinary sanction for those admitted breaches of the code of conduct.”

Mr Thomas, owner of Southern Sport Horses, asserted EA had wrongly and unfairly imposed a three-month ban upon him during the sport’s busy period.

He claimed it broke its own bylaws by preventing him from competing in events including the 2022 Australian League World Cup qualifying rounds.

The ban, he asserted, jeopardised his national ranking – which he claimed was “number six in Australia” – and income.

In October, the court heard EA had received complaints over Mr Thomas’ social media posts about Kate and Sophie Crauford, Michael Haese and a polo player.

The peak body had asserted the posts “contain false and misleading information which may be defamatory, vilifying and potentially breach the code of conduct”.

In his judgment, Justice Stanley said the peak body’s bylaws required complaints to be made within 14 days, and many of the complaints were outside that deadline.

Equestrian Anthony Thomas and his previous horse, Fluke, in action.

He rejected EA’s argument that the deadline was “a benchmark or a guideline” or “did not apply in this case”.

“I am satisfied that the strict application of the time limit has a relevant purpose (where) it may affect the entitlement of a member to participate in events,” he said.

“Accordingly, I accept (Mr Thomas’) that EA cannot bring disciplinary proceedings against him for conduct which was not the subject of complaint within 14 days of the conduct.

“(He) has been dealt with in contravention of the rules of the EA and contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

“By this conduct he has been damaged in his reputation and livelihood.”

He will hear further argument from the parties as to how Mr Thomas’ sanction for his admitted conduct should be determined.