Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia

Last updated

Betfair v WA
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameBetfair Pty Limited v Western Australia
Decided 27 March 2008
Citation(s) [2008] HCA 11, (2008) 234  CLR  418; 244  ALR  32
Case opinions
(7:0) The 2007 amendments to Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) which prevented interstate betting exchange operators from conducting business in Western Australia were invalid under s 92 of the Australian Constitution
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ

Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [1] determined that a series of amendments made by the Western Australian government to prohibit the operation of betting exchanges, [2] amounted to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind.

Contents

Background

The first plaintiff, Betfair Pty Ltd, operated a national betting exchange licensed in Tasmania and operated legally under Tasmanian law. Betfair’s exchange operated similarly to that of typical betting exchanges: Betfair would match the wagers of ‘registered players’ betting on opposing outcomes of sporting events either by telephone or through an online exchange, and then take a commission of the winner’s payout.

Betfair Australia is the Australian operation of the web betting exchange, Betfair. Established in 2005, Betfair Australia operates Australia’s only betting exchange under a Tasmanian Gaming Licence. Since August 2014 Betfair Australia has been fully owned by Crown Resorts.

The amended Act placed three restrictions on the plaintiffs. Firstly, under the newly inserted s 27B(1) it would be illegal for Betfair, the first plaintiff (the ‘out-of-state supply’ ), to operate a betting exchange in Western Australia. Secondly, under the newly inserted s 24(1)aa of the Act, it would be illegal for residents of Western Australia, such as Mr. Erceg, the second plaintiff (the ‘in-state demand’ ), to place a wager through a betting exchange. Furthermore, under the newly inserted ss 27C and 27D of the Act, it would be also illegal to publish the race fields of Western Australian races without ministerial approval. [2]

These new provisions of the Betting Control Act 1954 (WA) effectively prevented Betfair from participating in the Western Australian ‘wagering market’, a market dominated by Western Australian bookmakers and totalisators. Betfair argued that these amendments, namely ss 24(1aa) and 27D were invalid under s 92 of Constitution, [3] as the amendments imposed ‘discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind’. Section 24(1aa) prevented Betfair from competing for telephone and online gamblers. [2] Betfair was the only betting operator out of 115 which did not receive ministerial approval under Section 27D, and was therefore prevented from publishing the fields of Western Australian races.

The defendants submitted that these provisions, although discriminatory, were not used for the purpose of protectionism but rather for legitimate non-protectionist purposes. In addition to threatening an industry where Betfair made no contribution, the introduction of a betting exchange, where it was possible to ‘back to lose’, presented a risk that users may attempt to influence the outcome of a race and threaten the integrity of the racing industry.

Decision

The High Court held unanimously that the Western Australian government did indeed establish discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind, and declared the amendments invalid under Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. [1]

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

See also

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Related Research Articles

Bookmaker organization or person that takes bets on sporting events

A bookmaker, bookie, or turf accountant is an organization or a person that accepts and pays off bets on sporting and other events at agreed-upon odds.

<i>Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i>

Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 30 September 1992. It concerned the constitutional validity of Part IIID of the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991, which regulated political advertising during election campaigns, and required broadcasters to broadcast political advertisements free of charge at other times. The High Court found the laws to be invalid, since they contravened an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.

Online gambling includes poker, casinos and sports betting. The first online casino was in 1994. Many countries restrict or ban online gambling, but it is legal in some provinces in Canada, most countries of the European Union and several nations in the Caribbean.

Tatts Group company

Tatts Group is active in the wagering, lotteries and gaming industries with an operational footprint extending across every State and Territory of Australia; except Western Australia, and throughout New Zealand.

TVG Network

TVG Network is an online horse and greyhound racing betting business and American sports-oriented digital cable and satellite television network that is owned by FanDuel Group, the U.S. division of Paddy Power Betfair.

<i>Cole v Whitfield</i>

Cole v Whitfield, was a landmark High Court of Australia decision where the Court overruled two long settled approaches to the interpretation of the Constitution, that no regard could be had to the debates of Constitutional Conventions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and that the words "absolutely free" in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, protected a personal individual right of freedom in interstate trade. It was instead replaced with the economic notion of "free trade" in that interstate trade was not to be subject to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. Despite being a unanimous judgment, the decision remains controversial.

<i>Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd</i>

Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the application of the freedom of interstate trade, as specified in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield, regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.

<i>Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia</i>

Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with whether a particular Act of South Australia contravenes Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which is about the freedom of interstate trade.

<i>Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i>

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills</i>

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills is a High Court of Australia case that deals with a number of issues regarding the Australian Constitution, including the Express right free interstate trade and commerce, the implied freedom of political communication, and the role of proportionality.

Crown Resorts Australian gambling and hospitality company

Crown Resorts Limited is one of Australia's largest gaming and entertainment groups which had, in April 2018, a market capitalisation of just over A$8.7 billion.

Constitution of Australia the supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the government of the Commonwealth of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is referred to as the "Constitution" in the remainder of this article. The Constitution was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

<i>Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor</i> Australian Supreme Court case

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor is a leading case of the High Court of Australia on determining whether property rights exist, and protecting claims in property for the purposes of tort law. It is also notable in its rejection of the concepts of quasi-property and privacy in the framework of the common law. It has been observed that the concept of property itself cannot be entirely satisfactorily explained without accounting, in some way or other, for the ruling in Victoria Park Racing.

Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of India

The Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1966, inserted a new article 233A inter alia validating the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfers of and judgements, delivered before the commencement of the present Act, by district judges who were appointed, posted, promoted or transferred as a district judge in any State otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of article 233 or article 235 of the Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [2008] HCA 11 , (2008) 234 CLR 418(27 March 2008), High Court (Australia).
  2. 1 2 3 Betting and Racing Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (WA).
  3. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.