Surely we are not witnessing an extension of the law into a...

Surely we are not witnessing an extension of the law into a public interest defence. A development not seen since Denning J introduce estoppel in 1936 where he extended the law without any form of parliamentary instruction before him.

Is Hargraves J the new Denning entertaining a novel way to extend the law by entertaining ***public Interest*** defence.

Imagine the damage done by pleading damages should not be awarded cos a government cant then pay for education, or hospitals, cos it has to pay a gambling company a debt for services rendered by that gambling company.

Or

Is Hargraves J playing politics in NOT bringing down his decision, after all its only $1.2 billion riding on the way his judgement moves....whats $1.2 billion on the share price...or in the coffers of the governemt.