Dickin v NT TAB Pty Ltd - [2005] HCATrans 225

[2005] HCATrans 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Darwin No D4 of 2004

B e t w e e n -
GAIL DICKIN
Applicant
and
NT TAB PTY LTD
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM DARWIN BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 22 APRIL 2005, AT 10.39 AM

MR J.C.A. TIPPETT, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for the Applicant again with MR W.J. PRIESTLEY. (instructed by Priestleys)

MR P.M. BARR, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Hunt & Hunt)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Tippett.

MR TIPPETT: I embark upon this application with great optimism, if it please the Court. In the Supreme Court, Justice Angel described this litigation as having run off the rails. Your Honours, it is more…..in my submission, to the Granville train disaster. What happened was that the applicant came to the Work Health Court to have a case determined on issues set out in the cancellation of compensation in the Form 5 document, which is the initiating document in these proceedings, and there was a counterclaim, which mirrored, in effect, the issues in the initiating Form 5 document.

The Magistrate had before him an issue of a cessation of incapacity as at 8 January 2002, and there was, of course, an earlier proceeding in which an agreement had been registered in the Work Health Court pursuant to provisions of section 108 of the Act. It is not contested here that that agreement was not capable of giving rise to an issue estoppel.

HAYNE J: And what was the issue that would have been determined? Would it not be an issue that was time specific?

MR TIPPETT: No. The answer to that question is not a clear “yes” or “no”. The issue is, of course, an injury and incapacity. We say that in this particular proceeding the only issue before the Court was the cessation of incapacity. The cessation of incapacity may have taken place at a time between the time that the agreement was entered into on, I think it was, 3 July 1997, and subsequently recorded on 7 July 1997 in the Work Health Court. But the issue of time – the only issue of time in this case is precisely when that cessation took place, but it must have taken place prior to or on 8 January 2002.

It is submitted that this case is unusual in relation to the application of issue estoppel for this reason, that the injury which the worker suffered was not challenged because of the nature of the pleadings. The question of whether or not an issue estoppel arose was said in the Court of Appeal to have been determined by the case of O’Donelv The Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (New South Wales) (1938) 59 CLR 744, and it is…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dickin v NT TAB Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] HCATrans 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Dickin v NT TAB Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Dickin, and the respondent, NT TAB Pty Ltd. Mr. Dickin sought to recover money he had lost on bets placed with NT TAB, alleging that the bets were void due to NT TAB's failure to comply with certain provisions of the *Lotteries and Gaming Act 1993* (NT). The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the bets placed by Mr. Dickin were rendered void by NT TAB's alleged non-compliance with section 100(1) of the *Lotteries and Gaming Act 1993* (NT). This section stipulated that a bookmaker must not accept a bet unless the person making the bet has paid the amount of the bet in cash or by cheque. Mr. Dickin contended that NT TAB had accepted bets from him on credit, thereby contravening this provision and rendering the bets void.

The High Court considered the language of section 100(1) and its purpose. Their Honours noted that the provision was directed at the conduct of the bookmaker, imposing a prohibition on accepting bets without prior payment. However, the Court found that the Act did not expressly state that a contravention of section 100(1) would render a bet void. Furthermore, the Court determined that there was no implied consequence of voidness arising from the statutory provision. The Court reasoned that the Act provided for penalties for contraventions of its provisions, and in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, the common law position that a contract made in contravention of a statute is not necessarily void should prevail.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed Mr. Dickin's appeal, finding that the bets were not void and that he was not entitled to recover the money he had lost.

Orders