QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Richardson v Star Casino [2024] QCAT 60
PARTIES:
MELISSA ANN RICHARDSON (applicant)
v
STAR CASINO (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR242-22
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
6 February 2024
HEARING DATE:
11 May 2023
HEARD AT:
Southport
DECISION OF:
Member Carrigan
ORDERS:
1. The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Respondent made on 17 May 2022 to issue an Exclusion Notice to the Applicant is confirmed.
2. The Tribunal orders that the Application to review a decision filed by the Applicant in the Tribunal on 16 June 2022 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Review of decision to exclude applicant from casinos – allegation that the applicant was a problem gambler
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 19, s 20, s 24
Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) s 3, s 91A, s 92, s 93A, s 97
Gaming Machine Act 1991 (Qld), s 261C
Keno Act 1996 (Qld), s 154DWagering Act 1998 (Qld), s 216D
Ainsworth v Albrecht (2016) HCA 40
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Mr N Williams, Solicitor.
Respondent:
Mr J Toleafoa, Group Manager-Star Gambling at the Star.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Melissa Ann Richardson (‘the Applicant’) has commenced these proceedings in the Tribunal seeking to review the decision made 17 May 2022 by Star Casino (‘the Respondent’) to exclude her from the Staff Gold Coast Casino, Broadbeach and the Treasury Casino, Brisbane, for a period of five years from that date.
The Respondent had decided to exclude the Applicant on the basis that it believed that there were reasonable grounds the Applicant was a “problem gambler” within the meaning of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) and other related legislation.[1]
[1]The "other related legislation" is the Gaming Machine Act 1991 (Qld), s 261C; Keno Act 1996 (Qld), s 154D; and Wagering Act 1998 (Qld), s 216D.
The Applicant says that the Respondent had no reasonable grounds to determine that she was a “problem gambler”.
The Applicant seeks orders from the Tribunal to set aside the decision of the Respondent and to reinstate the Applicant’s “Rewards Points” which she had derived from her loyalty program as a member of the Casino Star Club.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born on 15 August 1971 and was aged 50 years as at the date of her exclusion from the Casinos by the Respondent.
The Applicant was a Platinum member of the Star Club which she says is the Star Casino’s membership loyalty rewards program. The Respondent says the next highest tier of Star Club membership is “Diamond” which is a membership tier that is by invitation only. Details of the length of time the Applicant had been a member are not provided in the evidence before the Tribunal. However, the Applicant says that she played poker “on a semi-professional basis”.
On 8 March 2022 the Applicant had been gambling at the Start Casino, Broadbeach and…
Continue reading Richardson v Star Casino
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Richardson v Star Casino [2024] QCAT 60
- Case
- [2024] QCAT 60
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before QCAT were whether Star Casino had lawful grounds to exclude the applicant from its premises, and if the procedure followed in making the decision was fair and in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the casino's decision-making process complied with the requirements under the Casino Control Act and whether the exclusion was justified based on the information available to the casino.
QCAT examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Tribunal concluded that Star Casino had acted within its legal rights in issuing the exclusion notice. The evidence indicated that the casino had reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was engaging in problem gambling, and the decision-making process followed statutory requirements. The Tribunal found that the casino had exercised its discretion appropriately and the exclusion was justified. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application for review and confirmed the casino's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal orders that the decision of the Respondent made on 17 May 2022 to issue an Exclusion Notice to the Applicant is confirmed.
2. The Tribunal orders that the Application to review a decision filed by the Applicant in the Tribunal on 16 June 2022 is dismissed.
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.