Page:SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia (2024, HCA).pdf/20

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

14.

be agreed between the licensee and the Treasurer to a rate that cannot be characterised as penal. The circumstance that interest is dealt with separately from penalties in Pt 5 of the Taxation Administration Act does not suggest that interest ceases to be interest if it is imposed at a rate that can be characterised as a penalty by reference to common law or equitable principles applicable to a contract between private parties. The default position established by s 51(2) of the Casino Act that an obligation to pay interest for late payment or non-payment of casino duty, along with casino duty and penalties for late payment or non-payment of casino duty, can be imposed by regulation in the absence of a CDA tells against importing any such limitation into the relevantly unqualified language of s 17(1)(c).

Orders

46 The orders to be made are:

(1) Appeal dismissed with costs.

(2) Special leave to cross-appeal granted.

(3) Cross-appeal allowed with costs.

(4) Vary the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia dated 22 February 2024 by:

(a) deleting the answer "Yes" to Question 3 of the questions of law referred for its consideration and substituting the answer "No"; and
(b) replacing Order 1 of the order for costs with an order that "The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs".