Page:SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia (2024, HCA).pdf/14

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

8.

an option referred to in argument as "turning right". The appeal concerns the consequence for the calculation of casino duty under the CDA of the Member choosing to "turn right".

The appeal

29 The ultimate issue in the appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that converted credits, when used by a Member of SkyCity's Rewards Program to bet on an EGM or an ATG, constituted an "amount received" by SkyCity "for or in respect of consideration for gambling" within the meaning of the definition of "gross gambling revenue" in cl 1.1 of the CDA.

30 SkyCity argues that, in reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal erred in interpretative principle by declining to take the ordinary meaning of "revenue" in the defined expression "gross gambling revenue" into account in construing "amount received … for or in respect of consideration for gambling" in the definition of that expression. The error of principle is said to have been attributable to the Court of Appeal implicitly treating as an inflexible rule the "orthodox view"[1] that "[i]t would be quite circular to construe the words of a definition by reference to the term defined".[2]

31 Taking the ordinary meaning of the word "revenue" into account, SkyCity argues, "amount received" in the definition can be seen to refer to a flow of money into the business constituted by the operation of the casino. SkyCity argues that converted credits, when used by a Member to bet on an EGM or an ATG, cannot constitute such an "amount received" because that use of converted credits does not result in anything of monetary value coming into the business. Had the Member chosen to "turn left" and redeemed the converted credits for cash, there would have been an outflow of money from the business. By choosing to "turn right" and placing a bet on an EGM or an ATG, the Member takes that same value in the form of a bet, which SkyCity argues is equivalent to a free bet. Both options available to the Member involve a flow of money from SkyCity to the Member. Neither option involves SkyCity receiving any amount of money.


  1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King (2020) 270 CLR 1 at 13 [18].
  2. Owners of "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 at 419, citing Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 503.