Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 31 October 2024 50 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

[2024] HCAB 8 (31 October 2024)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
8: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia & Anor	Contract
HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v Lewis & Anor	Federal Court of Australia
Automotive Invest Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation	Statutes

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
JZQQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional law
Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors	Constitutional law
Tapiki v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs	Constitutional law
Birketu Pty Ltd ACN 003 831 392 & Anor v Atanaskovic & Ors	Costs
Elisha v Vision Australia Limited	Damages
Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors	Equity
Pafburn Pty Limited (ACN 003 485 505) & Anor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674	Torts

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Cherry v State of Queensland	Constitutional law
DBD24 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional law
Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors	Constitutional law

5: Section 40 Removal

Case

Title

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Evans & Anor v Air Canada ABN 29094769561	Aviation law
KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors	Criminal law

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
DBD24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional law

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the October 2024 sittings.

Contract

SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia & Anor

A10/2024: [2024] HCA 37

Date delivered: 16 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Contract – Interpretation – Relief against penalties – Where appellant operated electronic gaming machines ("EGMs") and automated table games ("ATGs") – Where appellant had "Rewards Program" by which Members received loyalty points – Where Member could "convert" points into electronic gaming credits – Where Member could redeem converted credits for cash under specified circumstances or use converted credits to bet on EGM or ATG – Where Casino Duty Agreement ("CDA") between appellant and Treasurer provides that appellant must pay casino duty in respect of net gambling revenue for financial year – Where CDA defines "net gambling revenue" for period to refer to "gross gambling revenue" – Where CDA defines "gross gambling revenue" to mean "amount received ... for or in respect of consideration for gambling" – Where s 51(1) of Casino Act 1997 (SA) ("Casino Act") provides appellant…

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 High Court Bulletin 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: [2024] HCAB 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia & Anor [2024] HCA 37 was a case involving the interpretation of a Casino Duty Agreement (CDA) and the obligation of the appellant, SkyCity Adelaide, to pay casino duty in respect of net gambling revenue. The key legal issues were whether converted credits used to place a bet constituted "amount received" by the appellant for consideration for gambling, and whether the obligation to pay interest for late payment of casino duty could be subject to relief against enforcement if properly characterised as a penalty at common law or in equity. The court dismissed the appeal with costs and allowed the cross-appeal with costs, holding that the converted credits did not constitute "amount received" for consideration for gambling, and that the obligation to pay interest was not subject to relief as it was not a penalty at common law or in equity.

HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v Lewis & Anor [2024] HCA 35 was a case involving the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia in relation to an appeal from the New South Wales Supreme Court. The legal issue was whether the Full Court of the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal involving a matter arising under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court held that the Full Court did have jurisdiction, and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Full Federal Court decision and a writ of mandamus commanding the Full Federal Court to determine the plaintiff's appeal. The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Automotive Invest Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] HCA 36 involved the construction of the term "purpose" within the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). The appellant carried on the business of acquiring and selling luxury and collectable cars, displaying them in a car museum to attract purchasers. The legal issue was whether the use of each car for the purpose of display in the museum constituted an additional purpose or an incidental means to an end to the continuing use of the car as trading stock. The court allowed the appeal with costs, holding that the assessment of purpose was objective and that appropriate exclusions were applicable to exclude uses that were merely incidental, subservient, or means to an end to the continuing use of the car as trading stock.

Orders