Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd

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.