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

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

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).
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.
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.
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.
The fault was entirely mine.
TAB delivered its reply submissions, in accordance with the parties’ agreement, several hours after my judgment was published.
I regret the position in which my oversight has placed the parties, particularly TAB.
I have now given careful consideration to TAB’s reply submissions.
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.
**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, CrownBet Pty Ltd sought an order for costs from the State of New South Wales, following a legal dispute regarding betting and gaming laws. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The initial proceedings involved CrownBet challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions within New South Wales' gaming laws, arguing that they infringed upon its rights under the Australian Constitution. The State of New South Wales defended the provisions, asserting their constitutionality and the necessity of regulating gaming activities within the state.

The court was tasked with determining whether the provisions in question were valid exercises of the state's legislative powers and, if so, whether CrownBet was entitled to an order for costs. The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation of constitutional provisions concerning state legislative powers and the principles governing the awarding of costs in administrative law cases. The court needed to consider whether the state's legislative provisions were supported by a valid head of legislative power and whether the proceedings were conducted in a manner that warranted an award of costs.

The court found that the state's legislative provisions were valid exercises of the state's power to regulate gaming activities. However, the court also considered the circumstances surrounding the proceedings, including the conduct of both parties. Ultimately, the court decided that while the state's legislative provisions were valid, the proceedings had been conducted in a manner that did not warrant an award of costs to CrownBet. The court held that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing that the state's conduct was vexatious or oppressive, nor had it been demonstrated that the state's actions were unreasonable or unjustified.

In conclusion, the court dismissed CrownBet's application for costs, affirming the validity of the state's gaming legislation while also noting the importance of fair and reasonable conduct in legal proceedings. The court's decision underscored the balance between upholding the constitutionality of legislative provisions and ensuring that legal processes are conducted in an equitable and reasonable manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established