Tabcorp Holdings Limited v State of Victoria

[2015] HCATrans 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M81 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
TABCORP HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 063 780 709)
Appellant
and
STATE OF VICTORIA
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J
BELL J
KEANE J
GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2015, AT 10.16 AM

(Continued from 10/11/15)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Archibald.

MR ARCHIBALD: If the Court please, might I deal with several matters left over from last night shortly? At transcript page 23 I said we should provide to the Court copies of the second reading speech for the 2008 amendments. There is a bundle been provided to the Court. Document numbered 1 is that second reading speech. It is silent as to 4.3.4A. We have also taken the liberty of providing the explanatory memorandum for the amending Bill. It does refer to 4.3.4A at page 3 dealing with clause 7 of the proposed Bill. It says nothing about the purpose of the section.

At transcript page 24 I said I would provide a document setting out the evidentiary references to the genesis of the terminal payment provision. The sheet containing that material is sheet numbered 3 in the bundle. At transcript page 34 your Honour Justice Gordon asked me a question about Tabcorp’s involvement in the drafting of the 1994 legislation. The answer I gave was slightly inaccurate. I said that the corporation was created at the end of June. In fact, it was created somewhat earlier. The independent board was put in place at the end of June. Sheet 4 contains the correct data.

Justice Bell asked me at transcript page 79 whether the primary judge referred to Mr Westworth’s supplementary report. We have checked overnight and he did not. If the Court pleases.

Hearing continued in State of Victoria v Tatts Group Limited: see HCATrans 290

FRENCH CJ: The Court will reserve its decision.

AT 10.18 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Tabcorp Holdings Limited and the State of Victoria concerning the interpretation of a legislative provision regarding the payment of a levy by Tabcorp to the State. The core of the disagreement lay in whether Tabcorp was entitled to deduct certain amounts from the levy payable under the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Tabcorp was entitled to deduct from the Victorian Government's share of wagering revenue, under section 3.4.2(2) of the *Gambling Regulation Act 2003* (Vic), the amount of the Commonwealth Government's Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid by Tabcorp on its wagering and betting operations.

The High Court, by majority, held that the deduction for GST was not permissible. The Court reasoned that the legislative scheme contemplated a division of revenue between Tabcorp and the State, and that the GST was a tax imposed by the Commonwealth on Tabcorp's turnover, not a cost or expense that diminished the wagering revenue itself in the context of the State's entitlement. The principles applied focused on the plain meaning of the statutory language and the intention of Parliament in establishing the levy and its distribution. The Court found that the wording of section 3.4.2(2) did not extend to allowing a deduction for a Commonwealth tax.

The High Court dismissed Tabcorp's appeal, affirming the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established