STATE LOTTERIES OFFICE v BURGIN [1993] NSWCA 254

STATE LOTTERIES OFFICE v BURGIN [1993] NSWCA 254

The phrase 'MATCH 3 NUMBERS' on the ticket was ambiguous but, considering its ordinary meaning, contract law principles, and the structure of the games, was satisfied by the respondent having matched three numbers in pairs; the incorporated regulations related to security and did not render the ticket void as the ticket was valid and untainted by fraud; and the refusal of adjournment caused no injustice as the evidence was irrelevant.

Parties
Appellant: State Lotteries Office; Respondent: David Burgin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed by majority (Kirby P and Sheller JA; Meagher JA dissenting in part)
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Lottery Ticket Conditions, Legal Effect of Regulations, Adjournment Applications
Contract Law Subordinate Legislation Civil Procedure Interpretation of Contract Terms Lottery Ticket Conditions Legal Effect of Regulations Adjournment Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Lotteries Office

Appellant

David Burgin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the lottery ticket condition 'MATCH 3 NUMBERS'—does it require three of the same number or matching three pairs of numbers?
  2. 2 Whether regulations incorporated into the contract render the ticket void and disentitle the holder to a prize.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of an adjournment occasioned procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'MATCH 3 NUMBERS' on the ticket was ambiguous but, considering its ordinary meaning, contract law principles, and the structure of the games, was satisfied by the respondent having matched three numbers in pairs; the incorporated regulations related to security and did not render the ticket void as the ticket was valid and untainted by fraud; and the refusal of adjournment caused no injustice as the evidence was irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed by majority (Kirby P and Sheller JA; Meagher JA dissenting in part)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross appeal allowed with costs