Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sportsbet Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales (No 13) [2009] FCA 1582
SPORTSBET PTY LIMITED v RACING NEW SOUTH WALES and HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1821 of 2008
RARES J
26 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 1821 of 2008
BETWEEN: SPORTSBET PTY LIMITED
Applicant
AND: RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent
HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 26 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant's notice of motion filed today is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion. THE COURT NOTES: 1. The undertaking of the solicitor for the applicant by his senior counsel the filing fees will be paid at the registry. 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
general division NSD 1821 of 2008
BETWEEN: SPORTSBET PTY LIMITED
Applicant
AND: RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
First Respondent
HARNESS RACING NEW SOUTH WALES
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal three decisions of Perram J, given yesterday. In essence his Honour declined to order further discovery, or fresh discovery, depending on which characterisation one makes of Sportsbet Pty Limited's application before his Honour. Sportsbet argues that his Honour erred in his assessment of the evidence given in respect of the discovery by the respondents Racing New South Wales and Harness Racing New South Wales and that as a consequence his Honour erred in rejecting sequential applications for adjournment of the hearing of these proceedings which is due to commence next Monday. This application has been brought on with considerable expedition and much industry by all of the legal representatives of the various parties. 2 I indicated at the commencement of dealing with the proceedings this afternoon that I would make an assessment in the course of today whether or not I considered the proceedings raised sufficient issues to warrant me referring them to a court of three judges so that it could proceed as a leave application before them and, if necessary, the appeal could be heard at the same time. I also said then that in the event I came to a contrary view, I would be able to deal with the matter today. All parties have prepared brief but commendably focussed submissions on the errors which his Honour was said to have made.
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