Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd [2018] NSWCA 111
Hearing dates:
8 March 2018
Decision date:
25 May 2018
Before:
Beazley P at [1]; Leeming JA at [4]; Emmett AJA at [130]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Set aside orders 1 and 2 made on 19 July 2017, and in lieu thereof dismiss the proceedings as against the first, second and third defendants. (3) Direct the parties to supply within 21 days (a) agreed short minutes of order, or (b) in lieu of agreement, short submissions and the orders they seek, as to the form of the judgment against the fourth defendant. (4) The respondents to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. (5) In relation to (i) the name of the second respondent, (ii) the costs at first instance and (iii) any variation to order 4 above which may be sought, the parties are to file and serve (a) agreed short minutes of order within 21 days, or alternatively (b) short outlines of submissions and any relevant evidence in support of the orders sought by each of them within 14 days, and if they see fit a reply within 7 days thereafter, with a view to any dispute being resolved on the papers.
Catchwords:
CONTRACT – parties – construction of terms – online account to facilitate playing poker – former operators of website were made subject of restraining orders and forfeiture proceedings in United States – balance of player’s account “frozen” – settlement of United States litigation involving new operators acquiring assets and promising to pay account balances of non U.S. players – plaintiff enters into contract with company not party to settlement – whether implied term that company pay existing balance – whether other respondents parties to that contract – appeal allowed against fourth respondent only
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd [2018] NSWCA 111
Case
[2018] NSWCA 111
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd* concerned a dispute over the balance of an online poker account. The plaintiff, Mr. Benson, had funds in an account operated by entities that subsequently faced restraining orders and forfeiture proceedings in the United States. A settlement was reached involving new operators who agreed to pay the account balances of non-US players. Mr. Benson entered into a contract with a company, not a party to this settlement, and sought to recover his account balance. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with Beazley P, Leeming JA, and Emmett AJA presiding.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an implied term existed in Mr. Benson's contract with the fourth respondent obliging that company to pay his existing account balance, and whether the other respondents were parties to that contract. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr. Benson could sue in unjust enrichment for a breach of an obligation to pay, referencing the precedential authority of Gaudron J's reasons in *Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd*. The court also addressed the status of a High Court decision lacking a clear ratio decidendi.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the orders made at first instance dismissing the proceedings against the first, second, and third defendants, thereby dismissing the proceedings against them. The court directed the parties to provide agreed minutes of order or submissions regarding the form of judgment against the fourth defendant. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. Further directions were given for the parties to resolve outstanding matters concerning the second respondent's name, costs at first instance, and any variation to the appeal costs order.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside orders 1 and 2 made on 19 July 2017, and in lieu thereof dismiss the proceedings as against the first, second and third defendants.
(3) Direct the parties to supply within 21 days (a) agreed short minutes of order, or (b) in lieu of agreement, short submissions and the orders they seek, as to the form of the judgment against the fourth defendant.
(4) The respondents to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
(5) In relation to (i) the name of the second respondent, (ii) the costs at first instance and (iii) any variation to order 4 above which may be sought, the parties are to file and serve (a) agreed short minutes of order within 21 days, or alternatively (b) short outlines of submissions and any relevant evidence in support of the orders sought by each of them within 14 days, and if they see fit a reply within 7 days thereafter, with a view to any dispute being resolved on the papers.