CrownBet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 3)

[2017] NSWSC 1558

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	CrownBet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 3)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2017] NSWSC 1558
Hearing Date(s):	On the papers
Decision Date:	16 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Commercial List
Before:	Stevenson J
Decision:	Existing order confirmed
Catchwords:	COSTS – further consideration
Cases Cited:	CrownBet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1549
Category:	Costs
Parties:	CrownBet Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (First Defendant) TAB Limited (Second Defendant) ClubsNSW Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) Warners Bay Bowling Club Co-Op Ltd trading as Warners Bay Sports Club (Fourth Defendant) ClubsNSW Digital Services Pty Limited (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: B W Walker SC with P D Herzfeld and K Boettcher (Plaintiff) P J Brereton SC with R C A Higgins SC and B Lim (Second Defendant)   Solicitors: Minter Ellison (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant) Herbert Smith Freehills (Second Defendant) Baker & McKenzie (Third & Fifth Defendants) Henry Davis York (Fourth Defendant)
File Number(s):	SC 2017/157108

JUDGMENT

1. Yesterday, I published a judgment dealing with the question of the costs of these proceedings (CrownBet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1549).

2. As I recorded at [5], I had received submissions from CrownBet and TAB, it being agreed that I should decide the issue on the papers.

3. In accordance with a timetable agreed between the parties, I received submissions from TAB on 3 November 2017 and from CrownBet on 10 November 2017.

4. When publishing the judgment of 15 November 2017, I overlooked the fact that, by their timetable, the parties had agreed that TAB might have until 5pm on 15 November 2017 to make submissions in reply.

5. The fault was entirely mine.

6. TAB delivered its reply submissions, in accordance with the parties’ agreement, several hours after my judgment was published.

7. I regret the position in which my oversight has placed the parties, particularly TAB.

8. I have now given careful consideration to TAB’s reply submissions.

9. They do not cause me to change the views I expressed in my judgment of 15 November 2017 or to form a different view as to what costs order the justice of the case requires.

   **********