Hinkley v Star City Pty Ltd

In the case of Hinkley v Star City Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision made by the first and second defendants, who operated and leased a casino, respectively, to withdraw any license to enter the casino complex. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were required to adhere to principles of natural justice when making such a decision, particularly given that the Casino Control Act 1992 might confer a statutory license on members of the public to enter the casino premises. The plaintiff also questioned whether, if he were invalidly excluded by the casino operator, the lessee could still lawfully refuse him access as an invitee of the casino operator, and whether there existed a contractual entitlement to natural justice.

The court considered whether the Casino Control Act 1992 provided a statutory codification for the rights of entry of the general public to the casino, concluding that it did not. Any right held by a member of the public to enter the casino was pursuant to an implied common law license. The court found that the first defendant was not obliged in the exercise of its common law proprietary rights to afford natural justice when withdrawing a patron’s license to enter the casino or refusing to grant a license to enter the casino. The court further determined that there was no contractual entitlement to enter or to be afforded natural justice.

In addition, the court examined the degree of possession required to maintain an action in trespass, as well as whether an implied easement had been granted by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and its invitees to permit them to traverse the non-casino premises. The court held that both defendants had sufficient degree of possession or rights to possession to maintain an action in trespass, and that the doctrine of non-derogation from grant applied only to the grant of proprietary interests.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and that the defendants were not required to adhere to principles of natural justice in their decision-making process regarding entry to the casino complex. Furthermore, the court found that both defendants had sufficient degree of possession or rights to possession to maintain an action in trespass.