Oreb, Naomi --- "Betting Across Borders - Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia" [2009] SydLawRw 25; (2009) 31(4) Sydney Law Review 607

[∗] Final year student, Bachelor of Laws, University of Sydney. The author wishes to thank Associate Professor Peter Gerangelos for supervising this case note.

[1] [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418 (‘Betfair’).

[2] Section 92 states that: ‘On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.’

[3] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 16 (joint judgment). The Agreement allows restrictions to competition only if there is no other means of achieving a particular purpose or the benefits of restriction outweigh the cost of doing so. Thus the Agreement buttresses s 92 and should mean that fewer s 92 cases arise for consideration.

[4] This licence was granted under Div 5 of Pt 4A of the Gaming Control Act 1993 (Tas) following the enactment of the Gaming Control Amendment (Betting Exchange) Act 2005 (Tas).

[5] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 57–8 (joint judgment).

[6] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 74 (joint judgment).

[7] Section 118 states that: ‘Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.’

[8] [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360 (‘Cole’).

[9] (1990) 169 CLR 436 (‘Castlemaine’). Other cases relevant to the development of these tests include Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 27; (1988) 165 CLR 411 (‘Bath’) and Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman [1990] HCA 50; (1990) 171 CLR 182 (‘Barley’).

[10] See Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 394 (unanimous judgment).

[11] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 399. For greater discussion of the ‘general features of a discriminatory law’ see Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436, 478 (Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

[12] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 407.

[13] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 407–8.

[14] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 408.

[15] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 408.

[16] Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436, 472–4 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

[17] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 122 (joint judgment).

[18] Affirming Barley [1990] HCA 50; (1990) 171 CLR 182 whilst also providing a variation on the ‘scarce resource or the most inexpensive supplies of a raw material’ examples given in that case.

[19] See, for example, Christopher Staker, ‘Section 92 of the Constitution and the European Court of Justice’ (1990) 19 Federal Law Review 322; Andrew S Bell, ‘Section 92, Factual Discrimination and the High Court’ (1991) 20 Federal Law Review 240.

[20] An agreed statement of facts was presented in both Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360 and Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436.

[21] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 122 (joint judgment).

[22] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 118 (joint judgment).

[23]vBetfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 38–49 (joint judgment). Key Commerce Clause authorities here cited were pre-1900 decisions that had influenced the drafting of s 92, including Minnesota v Barber, [1890] USSC 190; 136 US 313 (1890).

[24] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 47 (joint judgment).

[25] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 106 (joint judgment).

[26] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 106 (joint judgment).

[27] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 106 (joint judgment).

[28] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 102–3 (joint judgment).

[29] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 110 (joint judgment).

[30] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 113 (joint judgment).

[31] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 107 (joint judgment).

[32] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 108 (joint judgment) citing Bath [1988] HCA 27; (1988) 165 CLR 411, 426–7 and Sportodds Systems Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2003] FCAFC 237; (2003) 133 FCR 63, 80.

[33] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 20 (joint judgment).

[34] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 18 (joint judgment), see also, 89–90 (joint judgment).

[35] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 133 (Heydon J). However, note that this comment was made in relation to s 24(1aa) specifically.

[36] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 145 (Heydon J).

[37] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 134 (Heydon J).

[38] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 134 (Heydon J). See also at 145 (Heydon J).

[39] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 146 (Heydon J).

[40] Cole [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 408.

[41] See Gonzalo Villalta Puig, The High Court of Australia and Section 92 of the Australian Constitution (2008), 50.

[42] See, for example, Puig, above n41, in particular at 120, 133–5.

[43] See, for example, ‘Notes and Questions’ in George Winterton, H P Lee, Arthur Glass and James A Thomson, Australian Federal Constitutional Law: Commentary and Materials (2nd ed, 2007), 520.

[44] Puig, above n41, 95.

[45] Leslie Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (4th ed, 1997), 149.

[46] Michael Coper, ‘Section 92 of the Australian Constitution Since Cole v Whitfield’ in H P Lee and George Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Perspectives (1992) 129, 140.

[47] Sarah Joseph and Melissa Castan, Federal Constitutional Law: A Contemporary View (2nd ed, 2006), 341.

[48] P H Lane, ‘The Present Test for Invalidity Under Section 92 of the Constitution’ (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 604, 607.

[49] R v Vizzard; Ex parte Hill [1933] HCA 62; (1933) 50 CLR 30, 93 (Evatt J) as cited in Lane, ‘The Present Test for Invalidity Under Section 92 of the Constitution’, above n48, 607.

[50] Staker, above n19, 344–5.

[51] Gonzalo Villalta Puig, ‘Free Movement of Goods: The European experience in the Australian context’ (2001) 75 Australian Law Journal 639, 650.

[52] [1935] HCA 8; (1935) 52 CLR 189, 205–6 (Dixon J in dissent). Subsequent cases in which this approach was applied by the majority include Hospital Provident Fund Pty Ltd v Victoria [1953] HCA 8; (1953) 87 CLR 1 and Mansell v Beck [1956] HCA 70; (1956) 95 CLR 550.

[53] Amelia Simpson, ‘Grounding the High Court’s Modern Section 92 Jurisprudence: The Case for Improper Purpose as the Touchstone’ (2005) 33 Federal Law Review 445, 462.

[54] Id, 479.

[55] Id, 480–1.

[56] See Heydon J’s judgment in Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418. Note too that Heydon J’s judgment was not entirely unlike the finding in Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436, where the ‘real object’ of the legislation was held to be economic protectionism, not litter control or the preservation of gas objects, because the effect of the legislation did not actually improve either of these alleged objects.

[57] Simpson, above n53, 469.

[58] Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436, 473 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

[59] Castlemaine (1990) 169 CLR 436, 473 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

[60] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 99 (joint judgment).

[61] See Puig, above n41, 135 for example, who advocates changing both the invalidity test to a non-discrimination norm and changing the saving test to one of robust proportionality.

[62] Simpson, above n53, 457.

[63] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Constitutional Guarantees, Characterisation and the Concept of Proportionality’ [1997] MelbULawRw 1; (1997) 21 Melbourne University Law Review 1, 61.

[64] As noted by Kirk, above n63, 20; confirmed by Gonzalo Villalta Puig, ‘A European Saving Test for Section 92 of the Australian Constitution’ [2008] DeakinLawRw 4; (2008) 13 Deakin Law Review 99, 116.

[65] Puig, above n41, 190.

[66] Betfair [2008] HCA 11; (2008) 234 CLR 418, 112 (joint judgment) (emphasis added).

[67] Kirk, above n63, 8.

[68] Id, 53.

[69] Id, 54.

[70] Id, 8 (emphasis in original).

[71] Puig, above n64, 124.

[72] Puig, above n41, 147.

[73] Id, 193.