PEOS -v- MANINO [2004] WASCA 46
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 46 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1044/2003 | 20 AUGUST 2003 | |
| Coram: | BARKER J | 17/03/04 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
SANTO BASILO MANINO
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MR M D WHEELER SM
File Number : FR6593/03-6642/02
Catchwords:
Gaming and wagering - Totalisators - Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) - Totalisator Agency Board Betting Act 1960 (WA) - Betting contract - Whether provision of credit by TAB - Whether contract illegal and unenforceable - Whether appellant authorised provision of credit - "Authorise"
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Acts Amendment (Fixed Odds Betting) Act 1999 (WA), s 25, s 36
Betting Control Act 1954 (WA), s 5, s 17E, s 22, s 28C, s 29, s 30
Criminal Code (WA), s 7
Justices Act 1902 (WA)
Racing and Wagering Western AustraliaAct 2003 (WA)
Totalisator Agency Board Betting Act 1960 (WA), s 17, s 20, s 22, s 23, s 33
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC &…
Continue reading PEOs v Manino
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- PEOs v Manino [2004] WASCA 46
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of PEOs v Manino, the appellant, PEOs, sought to challenge a decision made by the respondent, Manino, who was found to have contravened certain statutory provisions relating to betting in Western Australia. The dispute centred around the legality and enforceability of a betting contract made with a punter, where credit was provided by the Totalisator Agency Board (TAB), a statutory authority in Western Australia. The decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with the appeal subsequently dismissed.
The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the provision of credit by the TAB in the context of the betting contract rendered the contract illegal and unenforceable under the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) and the Totalisator Agency Board Betting Act 1960 (WA). The court was required to interpret the term "authorise" as used in these statutes and to determine whether the respondent had the authority to provide credit, thereby validating the contract.
The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and found that the term "authorise" in the context of these statutes was not limited to express authorisation but could also be implied from the respondent's actions and the broader statutory framework. The court concluded that the respondent had the authority to provide credit, as it was inherent in the statutory framework governing betting activities in Western Australia. As such, the betting contract was not rendered illegal or unenforceable by the provision of credit. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision that found the respondent had not contravened the statutory provisions.
The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the provision of credit by the TAB in the context of the betting contract rendered the contract illegal and unenforceable under the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) and the Totalisator Agency Board Betting Act 1960 (WA). The court was required to interpret the term "authorise" as used in these statutes and to determine whether the respondent had the authority to provide credit, thereby validating the contract.
The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and found that the term "authorise" in the context of these statutes was not limited to express authorisation but could also be implied from the respondent's actions and the broader statutory framework. The court concluded that the respondent had the authority to provide credit, as it was inherent in the statutory framework governing betting activities in Western Australia. As such, the betting contract was not rendered illegal or unenforceable by the provision of credit. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision that found the respondent had not contravened the statutory provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.