Adrenaline Pty Ltd v Bathurst Regional Council

Adrenaline Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge concerning the recovery of fees paid to Bathurst Regional Council. The dispute arose from Adrenaline Pty Ltd's contention that it had paid fees for the holding of motor racing events at Mount Panorama under a mistaken belief that the Council had the power to charge such fees. Adrenaline Pty Ltd sought to recover these payments.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the Council was permitted to raise defences not pursued at the trial, specifically the defences of causation and change of position, and whether it could rely on the defence of good consideration. The court also had to consider whether the Council was obliged to comply with Chapter 15 Part 10 of the *Local Government Act 1993* (NSW) when entering into contracts for motor racing events, or if its powers were solely governed by the *Mount Panorama Motor Racing Act 1989* (NSW). Finally, the court had to decide whether to determine a question of law that was not fully argued before the primary judge and was not necessary for the primary judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Council was not permitted to rely on the defences of causation or change of position, it was entitled to raise the defence of good consideration. Applying the principle from *Ovideo Carrideo Nominees Pty Ltd v The Dog Depot Pty Ltd*, the court found that Adrenaline Pty Ltd was not entitled to recover the payments made, as it had received the consideration for which it had bargained. The court also determined that the Council was obliged to comply with the *Local Government Act 1993* (NSW) in addition to the *Mount Panorama Motor Racing Act 1989* (NSW), interpreting the relevant statutory provisions in accordance with the "Anthony Hordern principle" concerning multiple sources of power.

The Court of Appeal granted the respondent leave to rely on a specific ground of its proposed Amended Notice of Contention and directed the Council to file an amended notice accordingly. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.