RY v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited - [2025] QCAT 436

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

RY v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited & Ors [2025] QCAT 436

PARTIES:

RY

(applicant)

v

THE STAR ENTERTAINMENT QLD LIMITED

(first respondent)

MICHAEL PRESCOTT

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL083-23

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

10 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

1.     The application for an interlocutory injunction filed by RY is refused.

2.     The matter is listed for a Directions Hearing to be conducted by telephone on a date and time to be advised but before 22 September 2025.

3.     The matter is listed for a two (2) day oral hearing in Brisbane on 17 and 18 November 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – MANDATORY INJUNCTION – where applicant excluded from attending Casinos and membership of The Star club – where applicant alleges direct discrimination on basis of sex occurred in making that decision – where applicant seeks order requiring respondents to allow him to attend the Casinos and reinstating his membership – whether interlocutory order in those terms should be made

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 46, s 95

Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), s 51
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 58, s 59

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v MZAPC [2025] HCA 5
Mizner v State of Queensland [2022] QCAT 245
RDF v State of Queensland [2018] QCAT 254

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant, RY has made a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex against the respondents for withdrawing his licence to attend Star Casinos and suspending his membership of its loyalty program, ‘Star Club’. The genesis of the complaint is an incident at The Star Hotel.
On 17 January 2025 RY applied for the exclusion to be lifted on an interlocutory basis pending determination of his substantive claim. He also seeks to have his membership of The Star Club reinstated. RY says that he was told at a previous mention, that a final hearing may not occur until well into 2025.[1] It is the interlocutory application that is before me.
These reasons were amended on 18 June 2025 by making amendments to anonymise a third party.
These reasons were further amended on 18 September 2025 by making amendments to anonymise the applicant.
[1]Application for interlocutory injunction dated 17 January 2025.
The background to the application
On 28 April 2022 security staff were alerted to a disturbance at a hotel room at The Star’s Grand Hotel in Broadbeach. Security staff attending the room found a female guest, Third Party on her back with her dress up over her hips and with RY ‘over the top of her’ fighting. Third Party told police officers who attended the scene that she had been strangled by RY. Police then detained RY and took him to the Southport watchhouse. A Domestic Violence Order was subsequently processed which prohibited RY from being within 100 metres of Third Party.
On 1 May 2022 The Star Entertainment Qld Limited (‘The Star’) and The Star Pty Limited issued RY with a withdrawal of license (‘WOL’) notice prohibiting him from entering their premises at the Gold Coast, Brisbane and Sydney effective from 29 April 2022.
On 4 November 2022 RY wrote to The Star requesting that his WOL be revoked. His correspondence followed notification from the police that it had reviewed the evidence against him and would not be pursuing any further action in respect of the matter. His correspondence to The Star was accompanied by an affidavit from Third Party in which she said she had been affected by a ‘dissociative episode’ during the relevant night.
Initially, based on that information, the Exclusions Review Committee (‘ERC’) at The Star approved a recommendation that RY’s WOL be rescinded. However, before that decision was communicated to RY, members of The Star’s Safety and Security Team identified that RY had previously been known as HY and had been the subject of adverse attention from the media, including in relation to a lengthy history of driving under the influence of alcohol. This included recent coverage of a court hearing in which RY had pleaded guilty to refusing to provide a blood or breath sample after he had been found naked in his vehicle after a collision and while he appeared intoxicated.
In December 2022 the ERC resolved to continue RY’s WOL.
On 6 January 2023 Mr Prescott, General Manager Asset Protection, The Star, Gold Coast, wrote to RY advising him that the ‘incident associated with the issue of your Notice of Withdrawal of License under Common Law from Treasury Brisbane and The Star Gold Coast has been reviewed and the decision has been made that it is to remain in place as issued.’
The ERC made the same resolution at its February 2023 meeting.
On 1 March 2023 that outcome was communicated by Mr Prescott to RY in the same terms as the letter of 6 January 2023.
The power to order an interim injunction
Section 59 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) provides:
(1) The tribunal may, by order, grant an injunction, including an interim injunction, in a proceeding if it is just and convenient to do so.
…
(5) The tribunal’s power under subsection (1) is in addition to, and does not limit, any power of the tribunal under an enabling Act to make an order in the nature of an injunction.[2]
[2]Section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) permits a complainant at any time before their complaint is referred by the QHRC to the tribunal to apply to the tribunal for an order prohibiting certain actions. The complaint in this matter was referred to the Tribunal on 30 October 2023, which means s 144 does not apply.
The grant of an injunction is a statutory remedy. RY seeks an order that his exclusion from the relevant casinos be lifted pending determination of his substantive claim and that his membership of The Star Club be reinstated. The application for that interim order is made in the context of a complaint of unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘AD Act’).
Whether an interim order, in particular an injunction, to that effect is made depends upon the nature of the relief ultimately sought and whether the order is in aid of that relief.[3] As the High Court held in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd:[4]
...an injunction is a curial remedy. Because it is a remedy, it is axiomatic that it can only issue to protect an equitable or legal right or, which is often the same thing, to prevent an equitable or legal wrong. So to say, is simply to emphasise that the function of courts is to do justice according to law.[5]
[3]Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199, [58], [105].
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
The power to order an interim injunction can be exercised if it is ‘just and convenient’ to do so. However, as I said in RDF v State of Queensland,[6] this power (and the power to make an interim order under s 58) must be considered and exercised in the context of the law. It cannot be ‘just and convenient’ to make an order for an interim injunction if there is no basis for final relief.[7] Such an order must go in aid of a substantive right.[8]
[6][2018] QCAT 254.
[7]Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v MZAPC [2025] HCA 5, [24].
[8]Ibid, [27].
In RDF v State of Queensland it was held:
The Tribunal’s power to grant an injunction under s 59 of the QCAT Act is comparable to the power at common law exercised by the courts. Accordingly, the Tribunal applies common law principles relevant in determining whether it would be ‘just and convenient’ to grant an injunction.
The usual approach is to consider whether or not there is a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interlocutory relief sought. These requirements are not entirely separate and must be considered together.[9]
[9]Ibid, [67]-[68].
The applicant bears the onus of proving to the Tribunal that it is just and convenient for the interim injunction he seeks to be granted which requires RY to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interlocutory relief sought.
What the parties say about the interlocutory application
RY seeks a reversal of the WOL and a reinstatement of his Club membership until the substantive matter is heard and determined. He says he has been banned from the Star premises since 29 April 2022 and that it would be potentially four years before he can seek ‘recourse and damages’ at a final hearing. He says that the exclusion has caused him ‘tremendous… ‘psychological and social harm’. RY claims he has not caused any detriment to The Star by his presence at their venues in the past but, to secure the injunction and to address any potential concerns the first respondent may have, he is willing to sign an undertaking in the proposed terms:
I will refrain from any conduct that:
(a) Causes or poses a clear and present risk of significant harm to the venue’s property, staff, or patrons; or
(b) Constitutes serious and disruptive behaviour that materially interferes with the venue’s ordinary business operations or the reasonable enjoyment of other patrons.[10]
[10]Application for interlocutory injunction dated 17 January 2025, [10].
The respondents, in addressing whether there is a serious question to be tried, submit that, in essence, what RY seeks is a permanent injunction against The Star prohibiting it from exercising its common law right to exclude him from its casino and hotel premises. They say the issue is not who the aggressor was on 28 April 2022, but whether The Star’s conduct, in response to the facts that were apparent to it at the time, was because of his gender. They say their response at that time was reasonable and not because RY was male. Further, that the ERC’s ultimate confirmation of the WOL was premised not on the events of 28 April 2022 but the ‘very real prospect that RY could engage in broader behaviours that might cause The Star adverse publicity if they occurred in proximity to his attendance at one of its venues’. Further, it is submitted, the balance of convenience weighs in the respondents’ favour, not least because RY has not given an undertaking as to damages. Moreover, RY has not provided a satisfactory basis to contend that damages would not be an adequate remedy. RY has been reasonably identified by them as a person whose conduct attracts significant media scrutiny; it operates a high-profile venue on the Gold Coast which is open late and serves alcohol; and, given RY’s apparent propensity to behave irresponsibly, there is a real risk his conduct may negatively impact on its reputation and potentially the safety of its patrons and employees. Finally, it is submitted, that RY’s delay in seeking an injunction is a factor which supports maintaining the status quo, which for almost three years, has been Y’s exclusion from The Star casinos.
In reply, RY contends that the sole reason for the WOL and its continuance was the incident in April 2022, that there was no difference between the two participants other than sex, and he received completely different treatment than the other. An undertaking as to damages is not relevant where there is no evidence of any significant likelihood that his attendance at their premises could come at any cost to them, nor have there been any issues with his attendance for the 36 years prior to being excluded. Further, that any delay in applying for an injunction could be explained by his hope to settle the matter at a conference scheduled for January 2024 and being informed, at that time, that a final hearing may be some time away.
Consideration
Serious question to be tried
The assessment of whether there is a serious question to be tried involves the application of the AD Act, and, in particular the question whether RY was treated less favourably by the respondents than another person would have been who was not of the male sex in the same or materially different circumstances. In effect, RY claims that, viewed objectively, the incident that occurred in Third Party’s hotel room on the night of 22 April 2022 and the way it was dealt with by police, did not justify the WOL and that, in doing so, the respondents treated him less favourably than they treated Third Party because he was male and she was not. RY also claims that the subsequent reviews of the WOL also constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex because by the time of the reviews further information about the incident had come to light, including that Third Party stated she was suffering from a ‘dissociative event’ at the time of the incident and yet the respondents did not reverse the WOL or reinstate his Club membership.
The respondents deny the relevant decisions were made on the basis of RY’s sex. They say, in effect, that the initial WOL decision was made due to the violent domestic altercation on 28 April 2022 between RY and Third Party and the way it was treated by police. The review decisions, they say, took other circumstances into account including RY’s multiple instances of driving under the influence; his acquittal, under the former name of RY, of murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the death of a woman in 2014; and a highly publicised car crash in which he was found naked in the car and for which he refused to provide a breath or blood sample.
On the material before me, there is no evidence to suggest that the respondents acted the way that they did on the basis RY was male. Indeed, the evidence supports the position taken by the respondents, that there was a violent domestic incident, RY was pulled by security guards from Third Party, he had bruises and bite marks on his body; Third Party told police he had strangled her; an ambulance was called for Third Party and RY was taken to the Southport watchhouse where a DVO was processed prohibiting RY from being within 100 metres of Third Party.
In my view, without resolving finally the issues raised by the parties’ contentions and on the material before me, I do not find there exists a serious question to be tried.
In the absence of a serious question to be tried, an interim injunction should not be granted.
Balance of convenience
RY submits the ban imposed on him since 29 April 2022 and that the psychological and social harm this has caused has been ‘tremendous.’ He says that he had been a long-time patron at Star and its other venues without incident and that it is ‘inconceivable’ the respondents could suffer any detriment as a result of his presence or patronage at their venues.
The respondents submit that the balance of convenience weighs in their favour for the following reasons: RY has not given an undertaking as to damages; there is no satisfactory basis to contend that damages would not be an adequate remedy; and the delay of almost three years before seeking interlocutory relief.
There is some evidence, including the letter from RY’s psychologist and through affidavits given by his parents, tending to show that his exclusion from The Star casino on the Gold Coast has exacerbated his ‘severe treatment-resistant depression and anxiety’. However, I have given that evidence little weight in the absence of cogent medical opinion. RY has been excluded from The Star casinos since 29 April 2022. The substantive matter has been listed for hearing on 17 and 18 November 2025. There is no medical evidence which indicates that a further seven month wait before his matter comes on for hearing will cause harm that cannot adequately be remedied by damages were RY successful in establishing unlawful discrimination.
On the other hand, if the respondents are ordered to reverse the WOL, it would be tantamount to saying they could not enforce their common law right as occupier to exclude him. There are good grounds to exclude him. Those comprise not only the incident on 28 April 2022, but the other information which came to light including his lengthy history of being under the influence of alcohol while driving. I have considered the undertakings offered but consider them of little weight, given RY’s history of unlawful behaviour under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, The Star would potentially be exposed to liability for any adverse incidents involving RY and its patrons and could also suffer reputational damage through any related adverse publicity should RY again engage in such behaviour.
Balance of convenience is not viewed in isolation. It must be addressed in the context of the substantive legal issues in dispute. After considering all the competing factors, I find that RY has not shown a sufficient likelihood of success in his complaint and that any further risk of harm to his mental health does not outweigh the concerns raised by the respondents in ensuring the safety of patrons and in minimising the damage potentially caused by adverse publicity of the type that RY has, in the past, attracted.
Accordingly, in all of the circumstances, I dismiss the application for an interim injunction revoking the WOL and reinstating his Club membership.
For completeness I note that the Tribunal is acting in a judicial capacity exercising a judicial power in its consideration of the grant of an interim injunction. The rights relevant to the exercise of that power are the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to a fair hearing. Those rights have been applied noting the legal representation of the parties and the full opportunity for the parties to make submissions and to file material.[11]
[11] Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) (2020) 5 QR 623, [222]-[223].
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1.     The application for an interlocutory injunction filed by RY is refused.
2.     The matter is listed for a Directions Hearing to be conducted by telephone on a date and time to be advised but before 22 September 2025.
3.     The matter is listed for a two (2) day oral hearing in Brisbane on 17 and 18     November 2025.