El-Issa v Racing Queensland - [2011] QCAT 230

CITATION:
Toowong Bowls Club Inc v Queensland Gaming Commission [2011] QCAT 221

PARTIES: Toowong Bowls Club Inc

v

Queensland Gaming Commission

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR190-10

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     7 February 2011

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Jim Allen, Member

DELIVERED ON: 23 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:
That the Respondent’s decision of 23 November 2010 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
Review of decision of the Queensland Gaming Commission to fix the number of gaming machines at less than applied for

Gaming Machine Act1991, ss 1A, 57, 59, 60

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:
The Toowong Bowls Club inc was represented by Mr Les Chamberlain

RESPONDENT: The Queensland Gaming Commission was represented by Mr Simon Grant of Counsel
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction

The Toowong Bowls Club Inc was established in 1904 and is recorded as the second oldest bowling club in Queensland. The Club moved to its current location at 59 Gailey Road in the 1960s. Gaming machines were introduced into the club in 1995 with five machines. However, the lack of professional management led to the decision by the committee of the day to relinquish the licence. For many years the Club suffered from marginal trading performance and declining membership and its facilities were in some disrepair. It became clear to the Club committee that improvements to the facilities and the operation of gaming machines would provide strong prospects to generate sufficient earnings to enable the Club to continue to provide the game of bowls for its membership and a community facility. The Club entered arrangements with a management company in 2003 which failed and also attempted to form an association with another club, Logan Diggers which was not approved by the Brisbane City Council, the lessors of the club premises. In 2007 Mr James Adams and his son, Mr Thomas Adams became involved with the Club and not only joined it as members but also have entered heads of agreement and a consultancy agreement to perform management services for the Club. It was a term of the heads of agreement that the Club make application to the Commission for a gaming machine licence. Once the Club received a gaming machine licence it was to enter a management agreement with Hospitality Leaders Pty Ltd, a company controlled by the Adams family. The Club made application to the Commission for a gaming machine licence to operate 55 gaming machines between the hours of 10.00 am and 12.30 am Monday to Sunday on 6 February 2008. The Commission granted a gaming machine licence on 27 April 2010 with the number of gaming machines fixed at 35 between the hours requested above. The Club being dissatisfied applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. The Club was given opportunities during the course of the application to provide further evidence in support of the application and as a result the Commission reconsidered the application on 28 September 2010 and 23 November 2010 and issued…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read El-Issa v Racing Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QCAT 230
Decision Date: 23 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of El-Issa v Racing Queensland was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. The respondent, Racing Queensland, is a licensee under the Gaming Machine Act 1991. The applicant, Mr El-Issa, is a competitor seeking to obtain a licence to operate gaming machines. The dispute centres on the respondent's decision to set the number of gaming machines at a level lower than that applied for by the applicant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision was unreasonable and whether it breached the statutory obligations under the Gaming Machine Act 1991. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent's decision to fix the number of gaming machines was within its powers and whether it complied with the statutory framework. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and not based on proper consideration of relevant factors.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the decision-making process undertaken by the respondent. It found that the respondent had considered relevant factors and exercised its discretion within the bounds of the Act. The court concluded that the decision was not unreasonable and confirmed the respondent's decision of 23 November 2010.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Respondent’s decision of 23 November 2010 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:		Toowong Bowls Club Inc v Queensland Gaming Commission [2011] QCAT 221
PARTIES:	Toowong Bowls Club Inc
v
Queensland Gaming Commission

APPLICANT:	The Toowong Bowls Club inc was represented by Mr Les Chamberlain
RESPONDENT:	The Queensland Gaming Commission was represented by Mr Simon Grant of Counsel