CONTRACTS — breach of contract — claim in debt — telephone betting on credit — plaintiff a licensed bookmaker — defendant a customer of the plaintiff — defendant refused to pay amounts lost — approximately 6,250 bets — whether wagering contract was unlawful and unenforceable — onus of proving unlawful conduct — whether bookmaker must prove compliance with regulatory requirements to enforce debt
Quick Take
1A party who asserts that a contract is unenforceable by reason of the other party's non-compliance with statutory prohibitions bears the onus of proving that non-compliance; a licensed bookmaker suing to recover a betting debt is not required to affirmatively prove compliance with all regulatory requirements governing the licence as a precondition to enforcing the debt.
2Section 15C of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits providing credit for interactive wagering services to customers physically present in Australia, requires the party alleging contravention to adduce evidence that the customer was in fact physically present in Australia; the requirement of physical presence is an element of the offence, not an exception for which the service provider bears the evidential burden.
3Section 69A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) reserves to regulations the power to render agreements for illegal interactive gambling services unenforceable; absent such regulations, non-compliance with s 15C does not of itself render a wagering contract unenforceable.
