Lejag Pty LTd v. State of Qld

Lejag Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought a declaration that a gaming machine license held by Munford Proprietary Ltd did not lapse due to section 80A of the Gaming Machine Act 1991. The defendant, the State of Queensland, applied for summary judgment in the Supreme Court of Queensland, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was without merit. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's operation of gaming machines on the licensed premises for a month, under a special authorisation granted to it, could be attributed to Munford Proprietary Ltd to satisfy the requirements of section 80A of the Act. Section 80A stipulates that if a licensee under a gaming machine license does not start conducting gaming on the licensed premises by the relevant date, the license lapses. The plaintiff argued that its operation of the gaming machines should be attributed to Munford Proprietary Ltd under subsection (4) of section 109 of the Act, which provides that while a special authorisation remains in force, the substitute licensee is authorised to conduct gaming on the licensed premises as if they were the licensee under the gaming machine license. The court held that this provision does not attribute the substitute licensee's actions to the original licensee. The court found that Munford Proprietary Ltd had no involvement in the plaintiff's operation of the gaming machines and that the purpose of subsection (4) of section 109 is to protect the substitute licensee, not to attribute their actions to the original licensee. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff's operation of the gaming machines could not be attributed to Munford Proprietary Ltd to satisfy the requirements of section 80A. As there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim, the court granted the defendant's application for summary judgment and ordered costs to be assessed.