Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 1) [2009] FCA 112
SPORTSBET PTY LTD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES, RACING NEW SOUTH WALES and HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1821 of 2008
PERRAM J
19 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1821 of 2008
BETWEEN: SPORTSBET PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent
RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent
HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The word 'legislative' be struck out of paragraph 93 of the statement of claim. 2. The balance of the motion be dismissed. 3. The proceeding be listed for further directions at 9.30 am on 24 February 2009. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1821 of 2008
BETWEEN: SPORTSBET PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent
RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent
HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Third Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J
DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 The respondents seek further particulars of the applicant's statement of claim and/or the striking out of various of its paragraphs. The background in which that application is made is set out in Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales [2009] FCA 111 ("Betfair") the reasons for which should be read together with these reasons. 2 The applicant ("Sportsbet") operates a similar kind of business to Betfair Pty Limited ("Betfair") but is based in the Northern Territory. The effect of s 92 of the Constitution is replicated in that territory by s 49 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth). On the hearing of the motion in this matter (which was heard at the same time as the motion in Betfair) there were four issues: (a) the ambit of the motion; (b) whether paragraph 90 should be struck out; (c) whether paragraph 91 should be struck out; and (d) whether paragraph 93 should be struck out.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate