Sportsbet Pty Ltd v Harness Racing Victoria (No 2)

In the case of Sportsbet Pty Ltd v Harness Racing Victoria (No 2), Sportsbet, a licensed bookmaker, challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic) (GR Act) and a condition imposed by Harness Racing Victoria (HRV). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issues before the court were whether section 2.5.19B(1) of the GR Act, which imposes restrictions on the use of race fields without approval, was inconsistent with the Constitution and whether the condition imposed by HRV on Sportsbet to pay a fee of 1.5% of assessable turnover for Victorian harness racing was discriminatory and protectionist.

The court examined whether Tabcorp, another wagering operator, could intervene in the proceedings. The court found that although Tabcorp had a commercial interest in the outcome, its interest was not sufficient to meet the threshold for intervention under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Federal Court Rules. The court reasoned that the effect of any order made in the case on Tabcorp would be indirect and consequential rather than direct, and therefore did not meet the requirement for intervention. The court concluded that the validity of the provisions in the GR Act could be determined with the current parties and that adding Tabcorp as a party would not alter the nature of the questions arising in the action.

The court's decision was that Tabcorp was not entitled to intervene in the proceedings, and the existing parties were sufficient to determine the constitutional validity of the GR Act and the condition imposed by HRV.