Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 1) [2009] FCA 112

Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 1) [2009] FCA 112

The only part of the statement of claim to be struck out was the word "legislative" in paragraph 93 because, in light of the particulars, the impugned object was that of administrative action rather than legislation and the word was apt to cause confusion. The balance of the motion failed because paragraphs 68 and 69 were not properly before the Court for strike out without procedural notice, paragraph 90 was arguable and should not be foreclosed at pleading level, paragraph 91 pleaded an available subjective case and had adequate particulars of intention while particulars of knowledge were premature, and the objections to paragraph 93 otherwise failed for the reasons given in Betfair.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Race Field Publication Approvals and Turnover Conditions / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Further Particulars And/or Strike Out of Paragraphs of the Statement of Claim
Outcome
The word "legislative" was struck out of paragraph 93 of the statement of claim; the balance of the motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['s 49 of the Northern Territory (self Government) Act 1978 (cth)' 's 92 of the Constitution' 'discriminatory Protectionism' 'race Field Publication Approvals' 'further Particulars' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'executive Action and Protectionist Purpose']
['constitutional Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'racing and Wagering Regulation'] ['s 49 of the Northern Territory (self Government) Act 1978 (cth)' 's 92 of the Constitution' 'discriminatory Protectionism' 'race Field Publication Approvals' 'further Particulars' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'executive Action and Protectionist Purpose']

Case Brief

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Race Field Publication Approvals and Turnover Conditions / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Further Particulars And/or Strike Out of Paragraphs of the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents could seek to strike out paragraphs 68 and 69 when those paragraphs were not within the limited relief identified in their written submissions.' 'Whether paragraph 90 of the statement of claim should be struck out.' 'Whether paragraph 91 of the statement of claim should be struck out or further particularised as to alleged knowledge and intention.' 'Whether paragraph 93 of the statement of claim should be struck out, including whether the expression "legislative object" should remain.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only part of the statement of claim to be struck out was the word "legislative" in paragraph 93 because, in light of the particulars, the impugned object was that of administrative action rather than legislation and the word was apt to cause confusion. The balance of the motion failed because paragraphs 68 and 69 were not properly before the Court for strike out without procedural notice, paragraph 90 was arguable and should not be foreclosed at pleading level, paragraph 91 pleaded an available subjective case and had adequate particulars of intention while particulars of knowledge were premature, and the objections to paragraph 93 otherwise failed for the reasons given in Betfair.

Court Disposition

The word "legislative" was struck out of paragraph 93 of the statement of claim; the balance of the motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The word 'legislative' be struck out of paragraph 93 of the statement of claim." 'The balance of the motion be dismissed.' 'The proceeding be listed for further directions at 9.30 am on 24 February 2009.']