Re Golden Casket Art Union Office - [1994] QCA 480

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 480
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 146, 147 & 149 of 1994

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.

[Schonnecht & Ors. v. Golden Casket Art Union Office]

BETWEEN

DONNA SCHONNECHT, KENNETH CULLEN
and ANDREW RENFREY

(Appellants)

AND

THE GOLDEN CASKET ART UNION OFFICE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered the 11th day of November 1994

This is an appeal by three individuals against a declaration that none of them is entitled to a prize in a game conducted under the authority of the Golden Casket Art Union Act 1978-1984 by the respondent, which is The Golden Casket Art Union Office. To participate in the game an entrant purchases a ticket, known as an Instant Casket Ticket, or "scratch-it", from one of the Office's numerous authorised agents, who is commonly a newsagent.

A ticket costs $2.00 and it has terms printed on the back. Nothing in this appeal turns on those terms or on the Instant Casket T.V. Scratch-Its Bonus Game Rules 1992. It is accepted on all sides that the outcome of the appeal depends on the proper interpretation, if that is not too sophisticated a description for it, of what appears on the face of the ticket.

To appreciate the point involved, one really needs to see an original ticket, of which examples were supplied to the Court on the hearing of the appeal. A black and white reproduction does not do full justice to its colourful appearance. Subject to that reservation, the face of the ticket may, so far as material, be described as follows.

The ticket is divided vertically at about the middle into two parts. On the right hand side are the words "$100,000 HOLE IN WON". They are printed on what is described as a latex cover, which on the right hand side appears below the words "Scratch the panel. Find 3 of the same symbols and win the prize". On the left hand side are the words "$100,000 SLAM DUNK". They appear on a similar latex cover above the words "Scratch the panel. Find 3 of the same dollar values and win that dollar value".

It is the left side of the ticket which is in issue here. When, in accordance with the instructions, the latex cover is removed, what is revealed is a rectangle, which looks like this -

$100,000 SLAM DUNK

$1000 $100000 $1000

THOUSAND 100THOUSAND THOUSAND
$600

$1000 $100000
SIX

TEN 100THOUSAND

The dotted line is included in the above representation only so as to indicate that the six sets of numerals are printed on a silver background, whereas the words $100,000 SLAM DUNK are on a maroon background, which is of a piece with the remainder of that side of the ticket.

The quest is to find three of the same dollar values.

The argument on behalf of the individual appellants is that the "panel" referred to in the instructions is the whole of the area…

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 Re Golden Casket Art Union Office 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: [1994] QCA 480
Decision Date: 11/11/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal was brought by three individuals against a declaration that they were not entitled to a prize in a game conducted by the Golden Casket Art Union Office. The game involved purchasing an Instant Casket Ticket, which cost $2.00, and scratching off a latex cover to reveal dollar values. The dispute centred on the proper interpretation of the ticket, specifically whether the dollar amount in the heading under the latex cover was part of the game. The appellants argued that they were entitled to win the prize by counting the two sets of $100,000 on the silver background and the $100,000 above it as part of "$100,000 SLAM DUNK". The Office contended that only the two sets of $100,000 on the silver background could be counted.

The court held that the words "$100,000 SLAM DUNK" were the name of the game and not one of the dollar values to be found. The court found that the form of the ticket, read in light of the instructions, was clear enough to indicate this. The court also noted that the presence of the words on the latex cover before it was scratched off and on the right-hand side of the ticket, where the name of the game was "$100,000 HOLE IN WON", further supported this interpretation. As none of the appellants had found three of the same dollar values on the panel, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court also addressed the issue of the costs of the proceedings below. The primary judge had ordered the individual respondents, who are now the appellants, to pay the costs of the proceedings, which were instituted by the Office. The court held that the appellants could not challenge the order for costs made by the primary judge, as the appeal against the declaration having failed, section 9 of The Judicature Act applied. This provision states that an order made by any judge as to costs only, which by law are left to the discretion of the judge, shall not be subject to any appeal except by leave of the judge making such order. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Orders