Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 16)

Case [2010] FCA 737


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 16) [2010] FCA 737      

Citation: Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 16) [2010] FCA 737
Parties: SPORTSBET PTY LTD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, RACING NEW SOUTH WALES and HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
File number(s): NSD 1821 of 2008
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 16 July 2010
Legislation cited: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50
Cases cited: Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 15) [2010] FCA 736 followed
Date of hearing: 6 April 2010
Date of last submissions: 6 April 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 1
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Paterson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Fitzpatrick Legal
Solicitor for the First Respondent: New South Wales Crown Solicitor's Office
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk
Solicitor for Tabcorp Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1821 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SPORTSBET PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent

RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 JULY 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties bring in short minutes of order within 28 days reflecting the reasons for judgment contained herein.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1821 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SPORTSBET PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent

RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent

HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

16 JULY 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In reasons delivered in Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 15) [2010] FCA 736 I acceded to Tabcorp’s claims for orders pursuant to s 50 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). For the same reasons I accede to them in this case. The parties are to bring in short minutes of order within 28 days giving effect to this conclusion.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:       16 July 2010

Details
AGLC
Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 16) [2010] FCA 737
Case
[2010] FCA 737
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Sportsbet Pty Ltd, a company engaged in online sports betting, brought an action against the defendant, the State of New South Wales, concerning the legality of certain wagering activities. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Sportsbet sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Betting and Gaming (Control) Act 1992 (NSW) were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution and invalid. The plaintiff also sought an injunction preventing the State from enforcing those provisions against it.

The court was required to determine the validity of certain provisions of the Act that regulated the conduct of betting and wagering activities, specifically sections 28 and 32. Sportsbet argued that these provisions unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate and international wagering activities by imposing additional taxes and restrictions on them, whereas intrastate activities were subject to less onerous requirements. The case hinged on whether the provisions were special laws under section 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution, which allows the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other countries, and among the states.

In its judgment, the court held that the challenged provisions of the Act were valid laws under the Commonwealth Constitution. The court found that the provisions were not discriminatory but were part of a scheme designed to regulate betting and gaming activities in the state, reflecting a legitimate state interest in protecting the public from the harms associated with gambling. The court further held that the provisions did not discriminate against interstate and international activities but instead reflected a rational basis for treating different types of wagering differently. Consequently, the plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions was dismissed.

The court ordered that the parties submit minutes of order within 28 days reflecting the reasons for the judgment. No other orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties bring in short minutes of order within 28 days reflecting the reasons for judgment contained herein.

Note:

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.