1 GAGELER CJ, GORDON, EDELMAN, GLEESON AND BEECH-JONES JJ. This is an appeal and an application for special leave to cross-appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Livesey P, Lovell and Bleby JJA)[1] answering questions of law referred for the consideration of the Court of Appeal under r 214.6 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) in a proceeding brought in the Supreme Court of South Australia by SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd ("SkyCity") against the Treasurer and State of South Australia (together "the State"). The proceeding arises out of a dispute between SkyCity and the State concerning the liability of SkyCity to pay casino duty and interest for late payment of casino duty under the Casino Act 1997 (SA) ("the Casino Act") in accordance with the Casino Duty Agreement entered into between SkyCity and the Treasurer on 27 October 1999 and most recently varied on 23 June 2020 ("the CDA").
2 By the appeal, SkyCity challenges the conclusion of the Court of Appeal, expressed in an answer to one of the referred questions of law, that electronic gaming credits arising from conversion by its customers of loyalty points accumulated by them under its loyalty program ("converted credits"), when used by a customer to place a bet, constitute 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.
3 By the application for special leave to cross-appeal, the State challenges the separate conclusion of the Court of Appeal, reflected in an answer to another of the referred questions of law, that the obligation of SkyCity under cl 11 of the CDA to pay interest for late payment of casino duty could be the subject of relief against enforcement if that obligation to pay interest could be characterised as a penalty at common law or in equity.
4 The appeal and the proposed cross-appeal ultimately turn on the proper construction of bespoke provisions of the CDA and the Casino Act, respectively, in a peculiar commercial, regulatory, and fiscal context. Resolution of each nevertheless involves a discrete question of interpretative principle not inappropriate to be addressed by this Court. Special leave to appeal having been granted and the proposed cross-appeal having been fully argued contemporaneously with the appeal, special leave to cross-appeal should now also be granted.
- ↑ SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia [2024] SASCA 14.
