CrownBet Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal

[2017] FCAFC 157

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CrownBet Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 157

File number:	VID 762 of 2017
Judges:	BESANKO, PERRAM & ROBERTSON JJ
Date of judgment:	27 September 2017
Cases cited:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 150
Date of hearing:	22 September 2017
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Economic Regulator, Competition and Access
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	3
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Borsky QC with Mr A Barraclough
Solicitor for the Applicant	Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr C Moore SC with Mr B Lim
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Mr R Smith SC with Mr G Ng
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Clayton Utz

ORDERS

VID 762 of 2017

BETWEEN:

CROWNBET PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

TABCORP HOLDINGS LIMITED

Second Respondent

TATTS GROUP LIMITED
Third Respondent

JUDGES:

BESANKO, PERRAM & ROBERTSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 SEPTEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. On Friday 22 September 2017, we made orders dismissing CrownBet’s application for judicial review and said that we would publish reasons for taking that course.  These are those reasons.

2. The conclusion to which the Court came in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Competition Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 150 was that the ACCC was entitled to succeed in its application because the Tribunal had failed to consider a central aspect of the ACCC's case, with which the Tribunal was obliged, by law, to deal. CrownBet had not itself advanced that case before the Tribunal, but it did seek to complain in this Court about the Tribunal’s failure to deal with the point. Whilst the ACCC was entitled to succeed on that argument before this Court (since the argument concerned how its own case had been dealt with by the Tribunal), CrownBet was not. In substance, CrownBet was seeking to argue that it should be granted relief because the Tribunal had overlooked part of the ACCC’s case. Had CrownBet’s case in this Court been heard separately from the ACCC’s it would have failed. CrownBet can be in no better position just because its case was heard at the same time as the ACCC’s.

3. It was for these reasons that its application was dismissed on 22 September 2017.  Costs will be dealt with separately and in due course, in accordance with the timetable we directed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Besanko, Perram & Robertson.

Associate:        

Dated:        27 September 2017