Tabcorp Holdings Limited v State of Victoria

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Tabcorp Holdings Limited against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued by the State of Victoria under section 100 of the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic) (the Act), which required Tabcorp to pay a significant sum of money to the State. Tabcorp contended that the notice was invalid and sought declarations to that effect.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 100 of the Act, as applied to Tabcorp, was invalid by reason of its inconsistency with section 92 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of interstate and intrastate trade, commerce, and intercourse. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the impugned provision impermissibly burdened or discriminated against interstate trade and commerce.

The High Court, by majority, held that section 100 of the Act was invalid. The majority reasoned that the provision imposed a tax or charge on Tabcorp that was not imposed on its competitors operating solely within Victoria. This differential treatment, they found, constituted a burden on interstate trade and commerce that was not justified by any legitimate non-protectionist purpose. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning section 92, focusing on whether the law discriminated against interstate commerce or imposed a burden that was not incidental to a legitimate regulatory purpose.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria be set aside. The Court declared that the notice issued under section 100 of the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic) was invalid.