Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 17) [2010] FCA 792

Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 17) [2010] FCA 792

There was no contract or estoppel obliging the second and third respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding; issues were insufficiently separable to depart from the ordinary rule. Thus, the second and third respondents must pay the applicant's costs, and the applicant must pay the second and third...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Sportsbet Pty Ltd; First Respondent: State of New South Wales; Second Respondent: Racing New South Wales; Third Respondent: Harness Racing New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Outcome
The applicant to pay the second and third respondents' costs of the notice of motion filed on 24 June 2010; the second and third respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding. Orders made do not prejudice prior orders.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Contractual Estoppel, Issue Based Costs, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Contractual Estoppel Issue Based Costs Administrative Law Constitutional Law

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportsbet Pty Ltd

Applicant

State of New South Wales

First Respondent

Racing New South Wales

Second Respondent

Harness Racing New South Wales

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding contract for costs orders between parties
  2. 2 Whether estoppel operated to prevent respondents from denying costs liability
  3. 3 Whether costs should be apportioned based on issues or follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

There was no contract or estoppel obliging the second and third respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding; issues were insufficiently separable to depart from the ordinary rule. Thus, the second and third respondents must pay the applicant's costs, and the applicant must pay the second and third respondents' costs of the notice of motion filed on 24 June 2010.

Court Disposition

The applicant to pay the second and third respondents' costs of the notice of motion filed on 24 June 2010; the second and third respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding. Orders made do not prejudice prior orders.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the second and third respondents' costs incurred by reason of the applicant's notice of motion filed on 24 June 2010.
  • The second and third respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.