Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [2008] HCA 11

Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [2008] HCA 11

Sections 24(1aa) and 27D(1) of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA), to the extent that they prohibit or inhibit interstate betting via betting exchanges and the publication of WA race fields by out-of-State operators such as Betfair, impose discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind upon interstate trade, contrary to s 92 of the Constitution. The State's objectives regarding industry integrity and funding do not justify the broad and protectionist effect of the legislation, as non-discriminatory means are available and employed elsewhere in Australia. The impugned provisions are therefore invalid to the extent identified.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Betfair Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Mr Erceg; Defendant: State of Western Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Special Case / High Court Judgment on Amended Special Case
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed in part. Declaratory relief granted. Costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Section 92 of the Constitution, Freedom of Interstate Trade, Commerce and Intercourse, Validity of State Legislation Affecting Interstate Trade, Betting and Gambling Regulation, Discrimination Against Interstate Operators, Protectionism in State Regulation
Constitutional Law Section 92 of the Constitution Freedom of Interstate Trade, Commerce and Intercourse Validity of State Legislation Affecting Interstate Trade Betting and Gambling Regulation Discrimination Against Interstate Operators Protectionism in State Regulation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betfair Pty Limited

First Plaintiff

Mr Erceg

Second Plaintiff

State of Western Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Case / High Court Judgment on Amended Special Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 24(1aa) and s 27D(1) of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) are invalid by reason of s 92 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the impugned provisions amount to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind on interstate trade
  3. 3 Whether any purported non-protectionist objectives support the validity of the impugned provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 24(1aa) and 27D(1) of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA), to the extent that they prohibit or inhibit interstate betting via betting exchanges and the publication of WA race fields by out-of-State operators such as Betfair, impose discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind upon interstate trade, contrary to s 92 of the Constitution. The State's objectives regarding industry integrity and funding do not justify the broad and protectionist effect of the legislation, as non-discriminatory means are available and employed elsewhere in Australia. The impugned provisions are therefore invalid to the extent identified.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed in part. Declaratory relief granted. Costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Section 24(1aa) of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) is invalid to the extent that it applies to a person, including the second plaintiff, who makes or accepts offers to bet through the use of the first plaintiff's betting exchange by telephone or internet communication between a place in Western Australia and the...
  • Section 27D(1) of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) is invalid to the extent that it applies to conduct of the first plaintiff in publishing or otherwise making available a WA race field by telephone or internet communication between the Tasmanian premises of the first plaintiff and a place in another State, or for...