SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Le Blanc v Qld TAB Ltd [2002] QSC 323
PARTIES:
BRIAN LE BLANC
(plaintiff)
v
QUEENSLAND TAB LIMITED
(defendant)FILE NO:
3255 of 2001
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
11 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
26 September 2002
JUDGE:
Muir J
ORDER:
That the defendant’s application be dismissed and that it pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where application for summary judgment under r 292 – where alleged that plaintiff has no justiciable cause of action
GAMING AND WAGERING – RACING AND BETTING ACT – where plaintiff placed number of bets with defendant – where plaintiff alleges contracts were made – whether s 248 expressly excludes claim of plaintiff – whether the section is repealed by the Wagering Act – construction of s 248 – principles of statutory construction – whether bets placed are legally unenforceable
Lotto Act 1971
Racing and Betting Act s 248(1)(a), (b)Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 292
Wagering Act 1998
Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority v Andonaros (1991) 103 FLR 450
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719
Downey v Trans Waste Pty Limited (1990-1991) 172 CLR 167
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719
Petranker v Brown (1984) 2 NSWLR 177
Project Blue Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 72 ALJR 851
Seward v The “Vera Cruz” (1884) 10 App Cas 59
Sweeney v Fitzhardinge (1906) 4 CLR 716
Tote Investors Ltd v Smoker [1968] 1 QB 509COUNSEL:
P D McMurdo QC for the respondent/plaintiff
A J H Morris QC with him T Sullivan for the applicant/defendantSOLICITORS:
Freehills for the respondent/plaintiff
RMS Cooke for the applicant/defendant
The nature and basis of the application
The defendant Queensland TAB Limited applies for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that the claim and statement of claim do not disclose a justiciable cause of action. The defendant’s contention is that s 248 of the Racing and Betting Act 1980 expressly excludes claims of the nature of that brought by the respondent.
The allegations in the statement of claim, may be summarised as follows:
(a) The defendant carries on the business of authorised wagering by means of a “totalisator”;
(b) The plaintiff had a credit betting account with the defendant;
(c) On 16 October 2000 the plaintiff placed a number of bets with the defendant as a result of which contracts were made between them;
(d) The contract included terms that –
(i) the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the bets would be in accordance with the Wagering Rules 1999 made under the Wagering Act 1998; and
(ii) the applicant agreed to pay a minimum dividend of $1 for any dollar bet.
(e) As…
Continue reading Le Blanc v Queensland TAB Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Le Blanc v Queensland TAB Ltd [2002] QSC 323
- Case
- [2002] QSC 323
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether section 248 of the Racing and Betting Act expressly excluded the plaintiff's claim and, if so, whether the section was repealed by the Wagering Act. The court also needed to consider the principles of statutory construction to determine whether the bets placed by the plaintiff were legally unenforceable. The court's analysis involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and applying the principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the intention of the legislature.
The court found that section 248 of the Racing and Betting Act did not expressly exclude the plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, the court held that the Wagering Act did not repeal section 248. The court applied the principles of statutory construction and concluded that the bets placed by the plaintiff were not rendered unenforceable by the statutory provisions. As a result, the court dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the defendant’s application be dismissed and that it pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.