Tatts Group Limited v The Treasurer of Victoria; Tabcorp Holding Limited v The Treasurer of Victoria

The High Court of Australia heard appeals from the Supreme Court of Victoria in *Tatts Group Limited v The Treasurer of Victoria* and *Tabcorp Holdings Limited v The Treasurer of Victoria*. The central dispute concerned the validity of certain provisions of the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic) (the Act) as they applied to the appellants, Tatts Group Limited and Tabcorp Holdings Limited, who held exclusive licences for the operation of gaming machines and totalisator betting, respectively. The appellants contended that these provisions, which imposed significant levies and taxes on their operations, were invalid by reason of contravening section 92 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of inter-State trade, commerce, and intercourse.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the impugned provisions of the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic) constituted an impermissible burden on inter-State trade, commerce, and intercourse, thereby contravening section 92 of the Constitution. Specifically, the court had to determine if the levies and taxes imposed by the Act discriminated against or unduly burdened inter-State activities of the appellants, or if they were valid revenue-raising measures that did not offend the constitutional guarantee.

Kiefel and Nettle JJ, in their joint judgment, applied the principles established in *James v Commonwealth* and subsequent cases concerning the interpretation of section 92. They reasoned that section 92 protects inter-State trade from discriminatory or protectionist measures, but does not prevent States from imposing non-discriminatory taxes or levies that may incidentally affect inter-State commerce. The Court found that the levies and taxes in question were general revenue-raising measures, applicable to both intra-State and inter-State aspects of the appellants' businesses, and did not discriminate against or unduly burden inter-State trade. The Court concluded that the provisions did not contravene section 92 of the Constitution.

The appeals were dismissed.