Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd - [2024] QCAT 591

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd[2024] QCAT 591

SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd[2024] QCAT 591

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 591

PARTIES:

SB

(applicant)

v

The star entertainment group pty ltd t/as the star gold coast and treasury casino

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR201-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2024

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

The Exclusion Direction issued on 9 February 2023 to SB is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the respondent casino determined the applicant was a problem gambler – where the applicant was given an Exclusion Direction – where the applicant’s income was unclear and primarily that derived from a carer’s payment – where the applicant spent most days at the casino – where the carer’s payment ended – where the applicant inherited property after the exclusion – whether the applicant was a person experiencing harm from gambling as at date of hearing in the Tribunal

Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 91A(2), s 93A, s 99C, s 126(c)

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Treanor of Quinn Law Group

Respondent:

Self-represented by J Toleafoa

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 9 February 2023 SB was issued with an Exclusion Direction by The Star Gold Coast and Treasury Casinos (‘Star’) prohibiting her from entering or remaining in a Star casino or taking part in Keno gaming or approved wagering at a Star casino.
  2. [2]
    SB has applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision pursuant to s 91A(2)(a) of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (‘the Act’).

Background

  1. [3]
    The decision to issue an Exclusion Direction was based on Star’s belief that SB was a problem gambler.
  2. [4]
    She had been living overseas but returned to Australia in March 2022 to care for her elderly Aunt. Her Aunt’s health was deteriorating and SB became her primary carer. In mid-April 2022 she applied for and was granted a carer’s allowance.
  3. [5]
    Both regularly attended Star Gold Coast casino’s Oasis Room and SB formed friendships with people she met there. Regular attendance represented some five or six days each week.
  4. [6]
    SB’s Aunt passed away on 30 October 2022. Some weeks later SB became a member of the casino’s Sovereign Room for platinum members.
  5. [7]
    In early December 2022, SB received a telephone call from an officer of the casino enquiring about her employment status. She said she was on a carer’s  payment for a family member who had just recently passed away and she was currently administering her Aunt’s estate.
  6. [8]
    She was asked to complete a VIP Customer Personal Details Form, which she did.
  7. [9]
    On 22 January 2023 she was asked about her carer’s payment income, when that would end and what she would do for money after that. Her response was that she did not know what she would do after administering the estate, nor how long that would take, but she was not concerned because she had her own money.
  8. [10]
    SB explained that the casino was a social outlet for her. Star’s staff informed her that since April 2022 she had spent $30,000 at the casino. She responded that she had not overspent or used her savings and played very low amounts from time to time. She was asked if she was prepared to play less and she said she would and they agreed she would halve her weekly budgeted spend.
  9. [11]
    On Australia day, 26 January 2023, she found her swipe card would not work.
  10. [12]
    On 30 January 2023 she met with the casino’s general manager.
  11. [13]
    On 1 February 2023 she was asked to provide more financial information.
  12. [14]
    On 9 February she provided financial income details by email. Later that day she was informed she was considered a problem gambler and the Exclusion Direction was issued.

The relevant legislation

  1. [15]
    The relevant legislation is that applying as at date of hearing, as explained below.
  2. [16]
    Section 93A:

Exclusion direction for person experiencing harm from gambling

  1. This section applies if a casino operator or a casino manager believes on reasonable grounds a person is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, harm from gambling.

Note— See section 99C.

  1. The casino operator or casino manager may give the person a direction in the approved form (an exclusion direction) prohibiting the person from entering or remaining in the casino.
  1. [17]
    Section 99C:[1]

Who is a person experiencing harm from gambling

A reference in this division to a person experiencing harm from gambling is a reference to a person whose behaviour relating to gambling—

  1. is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling; and
  1. is adversely affecting the person, other persons or the community.
  1. [18]
    Section 91A:

Who may apply for review

…

  1. … a person may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the tribunal for a review of the following decisions—
  1. a decision of a casino operator or a casino manager, under section 93A, to give the person an exclusion direction;

Merits review

  1. [19]
    Section 91A(2) of the Act provides for a review of a decision made by a casino operator or manager to issue a direction prohibiting a person to enter or remain at a casino “as provided under the QCAT Act”.[2]
  2. [20]
    Reviews conducted by the Tribunal as provided by the QCAT Act[3] are merit reviews. The purpose of a merit review is to have a fresh hearing and produce the correct and preferable decision.
  3. [21]
    In merit reviews before the Tribunal, the material before the Tribunal may include information that is not confined to the material before the primary decision‑maker, and may include information becoming available after the decision under review was made.
  4. [22]
    In Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 (‘Shi’), (a matter concerning the Australian Administrative Tribunal) Kirby J referred to the proceedings effectively substituting one decision maker for another[4] as reason for a merits review determining a matter on evidence relevant and current as at the date of review rather than limiting the material to be considered to only that material that was before the first decision maker. He referred to the decision maker and the review being a continuum of the decision making process. If the material is relevant, no matter that it is new or fresh, the Tribunal may have regard to it in making its own decision.
  5. [23]
    His Honour said:
  1. 46.
    There is thus a general approach deriving in particular from the statutory function of substituting one administrative decision for another. Nevertheless, the particular nature of the "decision" in question may sometimes, exceptionally, confine the Tribunal's attention to the state of the evidence as at a particular time.
  1. [24]
    In Shi Hayne J and Heydon J said:
  1. 99.
    Once it is accepted that the Tribunal is not confined to the record before the primary decision‑maker, it follows that, unless there is some statutory basis for confining that further material to such as would bear upon circumstances as they existed at the time of the initial decision, the material before the Tribunal will include information about conduct and events that occurred after the decision under review. If there is any such statutory limitation, it would be found in the legislation which empowered the primary decision‑maker to act;

…

  1. 101.
    Nothing in the provisions of the Migration Act fixed a particular time as the point at which a migration agent's fitness to provide immigration assistance was to be assessed. Unlike some legislation providing for pension entitlements[81], in which the critical statutory question is whether a criterion was met or not met at a particular date, such as the date of cancellation of entitlements, the provisions of s 303 of the Migration Act contained no temporal element. It follows that when the Tribunal reviews a decision made under s 303, the question which the Tribunal must consider (is the Tribunal satisfied that the person concerned is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance?) is a question which invites attention to the state of affairs as they exist at the time the Tribunal makes its decision.
  1. [25]
    There is no statutory basis to be discerned for confining the material in the matter at hand to only that existing at the time of the original decision.[5] Not only is there no basis to limit the factual circumstances to be considered to those existing at the time Star decided to issue the Exclusion Direction, but also the law applying.
  2. [26]
    There were amendments to the Act after the Exclusion Direction was issued. However those amendments simply removed the definition of “problem gambler” from the schedule to the Act and effectively added it as s 99C but without the words “problem gambler”. Nothing turns on the changes. There are no accrued rights to be considered as at the date of exclusion from the casino. Therefore, the law in force as at the date of this decision applies.
  3. [27]
    The matter at hand proceeds on the basis of merit review with the object being to produce the correct and preferable decision based on all the relevant evidence available and the law applying as at date of hearing.

New evidence

  1. [28]
    At the hearing, SB applied for leave to adduce additional evidence. Leave was granted. The fresh evidence comprised a number of St George Bank statements of account in her name, a Centrelink Statement of Age Benefit for SB dated 4 July 2024, a Titles Office title registration statement of land in her name, a market appraisal of the title property by a real estate agent dated 10 September 2024 together with a comparative market analysis of the same property, a Supreme Court file summary dated 6 February 2023 showing a grant of probate to SB in respect of her Aunt’s will, and finally a psychologist’s report.

Issues

  1. [29]
    The issues in dispute are as follows:
    1. Was the Exclusion Direction a valid direction given pursuant to s 93A of the Act?
    2. If yes, then are there reasonable grounds to believe SB is a person experiencing or at risk of experiencing harm from gambling warranting the Exclusion Direction being given her?

Was the Exclusion Direction a valid direction given pursuant to s 93A of the Act?

  1. [30]
    SB submits the person who issued the Exclusion Direction has not provided evidence to prove she had authority to issue the Exclusion Direction under the Act.
  2. [31]
    Star refers to the list of persons authorised to exclude a person from its casinos set out in Star’s Exclusion Policy document. The Guest Support Manager is listed as a person delegated authority to sign an Exclusion Direction. The subject Exclusion Direction purports to be signed by the Guest Support Manager but the signature itself is redacted, apparently for privacy concerns.
  3. [32]
    Section 126 of the Act provides:

126 Evidentiary provisions

In proceedings under this Act—

…

  1. a document or writing purporting to be a copy of any direction, notice, requirement, order or requisition given or made under this Act or of any licence (including any provisional licence) granted or issued under this Act shall be evidence of the direction, notice, requirement, order, requisition or licence of which it purports to be a copy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, shall be conclusive such evidence;

(emphasis added)

  1. [33]
    The Exclusion Direction is evidence in itself of what it purports to be a copy of, and SB must lead evidence to the contrary if she questions the validity of the document. SB has not led any such evidence.
  2. [34]
    SB additionally challenges the extent of the exclusion concerned, namely that the Exclusion Notice exercised similar powers granted under s 261C of the Gaming Machine Act 1991 (Qld), s 154D of the Keno Act 1996 (Qld) and s 216D of the Wagering Act 1998 (Qld) to exclude her from games of Keno, wagering and from gaming tables. She says she has never accessed or played these games. SB submits, given she has only ever used gaming machines, that Star could only reasonably exclude her from the gaming machine area.
  3. [35]
    I reject that submission.
  4. [36]
    Star submits, and I accept, that it is casino operator of the Gold Coast and Brisbane casinos. Wagering games and other gambling activities are conducted at the Star casinos. According to Star it also acts as agent for TAB and Keno gaming. All such occur within the casinos’ licensed areas.
  5. [37]
    According to the definitions of relevant terms in the schedule to the Act:

casino means the areas of a hotel-casino complex—

  1. the boundaries of which are identified in a casino licence; and
  1. that may be used for casino operations.

casino operations means the operation and conduct, in relation to a casino, of any of the following—

  1. gaming;

gaming or gambling means the playing in a casino of any game.

game means a game that may be conducted or played in a casino under a casino licence or a machine game.

  1. [38]
    The playing of a game at a casino, regardless of the game, is part of casino operations. It was open to Star to exclude SB from its casino operations, and therefore from any game conducted at the casino.
  2. [39]
    The Exclusion Direction was valid.

Are there reasonable grounds to believe SB is a person experiencing or at risk of experiencing harm from gambling warranting the exclusion direction being given her?

  1. [40]
    Star diarised interventions with SB commencing 9 December 2022 in its Patron Profile records. A casino officer had spoken to her about a mistake she made using somebody else’s gaming machine. She contacted the casino about that.
  2. [41]
    In the following discussion SB is noted to say that her Aunt had passed away a couple of weeks prior. She said she had moved back to Australia from the USA to be her Aunt’s carer. She said she and her Aunt visited the casino “very regularly”. It was their favourite thing to do together. SB said she was still visiting regularly because it reminded her of her Aunt. They had many friends at the casino.
  3. [42]
    SB also said she had been on a carer’s pension for some time, was still receiving it and she continued to be entitled to it for some months more. She was not stressed about employment and had no particular plan. The note adds “She stated she is financially comfortable and her Aunty has left her everything. She did not specify any amounts and it did not feel appropriate to ask her in her current emotional state.”
  4. [43]
    The note continues that SB did not have the same gaming limit to her gambling everyday but she felt her weekly spend should be consistent. She said when she overdid it she did not feel so great about herself. When she won however she felt better about herself.
  5. [44]
    She finished that she liked to walk around Broadbeach most days. She would walk through the shopping centres and “pop into the casino.”
  6. [45]
    On 22 January 2022 there is a record of another discussion had with SB. An officer talked to her when she was gaming in the Sovereign Room. She was asked to provide additional information about her financial situation. The casino did not know whether she rented or owned a home, nor what income she received from her carer’s pension.
  7. [46]
    In the conversation SB was informed she had lost $30,000 since April 2022. She refused to accept that. She said her carer’s pension would end soon but she was trying to obtain another benefit. The note records her being evasive when she was asked to set a betting limit, but eventually agreed to limit her spend to $500 per week. The casino advised her that her weekly spend/loss at that time was $1,000.
  8. [47]
    SB admitted she used her savings. The note records that she refused to elaborate how she obtained her savings nor how much her savings were.
  9. [48]
    On 25 January 2023 she was telephoned by a casino officer and she commented during the conversation that her pension entitlement was ending that day. She subsequently denied making the comment. She said she did not want to discuss any other personal information. She was advised that on the information presently held by the casino, her gambling was not sustainable.
  10. [49]
    On 26 January 2023 SB attended the casino but was refused entry to the Sovereign Room. She agreed she would limit her gambling to $500 per week although she did not feel she needed a limit. She agreed she had been visiting the casino every day when she walked to the shops. She said she had gambled when she lived in the USA.
  11. [50]
    She denied using her savings to gamble and remarked that she had a house worth $4 million. This appears to have been the first occasion SB made mention of her assets.
  12. [51]
    The following day, 27 January 2023, SB emailed Star. It is not clear why. However, an officer from the Star Safer Gambling Team returned her call. SB said she had already agreed on a limit to her spending at the casino and was unclear why any further contact was necessary. SB was informed that there were some things yet to be clarified. The casino had concerns that she was on a pension and she had admitted she was spending her savings. SB denied having said that.
  13. [52]
    The officer reminded her she had losses of $30,000 since April 2022. SB responded that she had had some wins too. It was explained to her that the $30,000 loss figure also took into account her wins over the period.
  14. [53]
    SB said she had brought funds from the USA. She was advised that such were considered savings. SB said they were held in a cheque account and therefore not savings.
  15. [54]
    SB said she felt she was being singled out because she was on a pension. She said she would be coming off the pension shortly and would need to find a job. The officer said this was the first occasion she had mentioned a job. SB responded with the query, how did they expect her to live without a job? The officer said she had only mentioned moving to onto another pension. SB said that was still an option.
  16. [55]
    SB said she had an excellent credit rating. The officer ended by saying that that was not useful because it did not show someone was not using their savings to gamble, and using savings to gamble was not sustainable.
  17. [56]
    The officer asked her to take a break from the casino for a month or so. He said they would contact her. She was still welcome to enter any area outside the gambling area.
  18. [57]
    On 9 February 2023 SB emailed the same officer apparently. She said the officer had requested more financial information “as of June 2022”. She gave the following:

US income for 2022 $14,216.53 AUD

Carer payment & allowance $1,163/fortnight

One time bereavement payment  $5,094.60

Current earnings on investments approx. $1,000 per month

  1. [58]
    The Exclusion Direction was issued that day.
  2. [59]
    Star sets out details of both SB’s wins and losses over the period 3 April 2022 to 24 January 2023 taken into account in deciding that SB should be excluded. She had suffered an overall loss of $30,954.06.
  3. [60]
    Based on information supplied by SB, Star calculated that her annual income for 2022 was approximately $51,000. On their recorded wins and losses, she had lost $27,595.43 over the period 1 April 2022 to 31 December 2022. That meant she had lost approximately 54% of her annual income in nine months.
  4. [61]
    Part of her $51,000 income was a one-off payment of $5,000 and a fortnightly carer’s payment that had ended.
  5. [62]
    In discussion with her, SB failed to understand that she was spending her savings.
  6. [63]
    SB cried in almost every interaction with Star staff, suggesting she was fragile and potentially vulnerable after her Aunt’s death.
  7. [64]
    SB was reluctant to set limits on her betting, but eventually agreed to a budget of $500 per week.
  8. [65]
    The only financial information provided to Star, says Star, was set out in the email of 9 February 2023. Star believed, on that information provided, she was spending more than she could afford and the spending (out of savings) was not sustainable, and therefore SB was a problem gambler.
  9. [66]
    I accept the historical statistical records of wins and losses provided by Star are accurate. SB challenges the overall win/loss balance because she claims she was not using “savings”, she played very low amounts and she won prizes which values have not been taken into account. She points to such things won as an Ipad and keyboard worth $1,500, Bose speaker $500, cash wins totalling approximately $1,000,  a $100 Amazon e-gift card and food and beverage vouchers.
  10. [67]
    She offers no real basis to challenge the accuracy of the Star figures set out however, referring to any differences between the Star figures and her own (which are not provided) as discrepancies.

Fresh evidence

  1. [68]
    An item of fresh evidence was a report by a psychologist dated 20 July 2024. The psychologist states that she had provided psychological counselling to SB “this year”. The report is dated 20 July 2024. The psychologist sets out the story as told to her by SB of SB’s interventions with casino staff. She refers to SB’s belief that her honour and integrity had been attacked, she felt humiliated by the exclusion and she found it difficult to cope.
  2. [69]
    The psychologist concludes with the statement that “(SB) does not identify with the Star Casino’s determination that she is a problem gambler as per the definition she was supplied with….”
  3. [70]
    Then the psychologist apparently gives her own view about the matter, saying she does not believe she meets the definition of problem gambling. “Nor does she meet the criteria for Gambling Disorder as defined by DSM-V.”[6] The basis for this conclusion is apparently her 25 years’ experience in addiction medicine.
  4. [71]
    The report is of very limited assistance. The facts as reported to the psychologist by SB are set out, and then the psychologist gives a broad brush opinion. The hiatus between is the testing or assessment conducted to found the conclusion that SB does not have a gambling problem.
  5. [72]
    Nor is it clear that the psychologist has addressed the correct criteria. She refers to DSM-5 criteria diagnosing a gambling disorder. The relevant criteria under the Act pursuant to s 93A is whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, harm from gambling. By s 99C a person experiencing harm from gambling means a person whose behaviour relating to gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends gambling and that behaviour is adversely affecting the person, other persons or the community.
  6. [73]
    It may well be the case that the bar set by s 93A taken with s 99C is lower or different to diagnosing a gambling disorder. There is no assistance to be derived from the legislation itself. The psychologist does not explore the issue. The report sets out s 99C but it states that SB “does not identify with the Star Casino’s determination that she is a problem gambler as per the definition.” It is the psychologist’s interpretation that might assist the Tribunal, not SB’s, if that is what the psychologist meant in her report.
  7. [74]
    Additional fresh evidence was in the form of copies of bank statements of two accounts in SB’s name with St George Bank, showing balances of $236,100 and $40,763.08 as at 16 October 2024.
  8. [75]
    A Centrelink statement dated 4 July 2024 shows she is receiving an age pension with regular fortnightly payments of $1,016.37. In the income and assets details section of the document the abovementioned St George Bank accounts are noted but additionally another St George Bank account with a balance of $5,617 as at 4 July 2024. Also noted is a Bank of America savings account with a balance at that time of $16,041.72 and a Citi Bank savings account of $620.44.
  9. [76]
    There is also a title registration extract in respect of a property in the name of SB. There is no mortgage noted. The property was inherited by SB from her Aunt.
  10. [77]
    There is also a market appraisal of that property by a real estate agent dated 10 September 2024 giving it a value as at 20 October 2022 of $2,200,000 to $2,300,000.
  11. [78]
    Finally there is a document described as a Comparative Market Analysis of the same property from the same agent but giving a market value for the property as at 10 September 2024 of between $2,820,000 to $3,640,000.

Consideration

  1. [79]
    Star maintains SB should be considered a problem gambler, regardless of her inheriting the house property from her Aunt. She has difficulties limiting the amount of money or time she spends gambling.
  2. [80]
    Star says SB attended Star Gold Coast casino excessively over the period 1 April 2022 to 24 January 2023. An analysis of the data shows she attended the casino every day save for two days in three of those months, attended every day save for four days in two of the other months, in August and September she attended on 21 days each month, in April on 19 days and October 20 days. In January 2023 from the 1st through to 24 January 2023, she attended every day save for one.
  3. [81]
    Star points out SB cried in almost every interaction she had with Star staff.
  4. [82]
    Star contends she could not recognise that she was spending her savings in her gambling.
  5. [83]
    She was reluctant to set limits on her gambling, which at the time of issue of the Exclusion Direction accounted for more than 50% of her income.
  6. [84]
    SB fed any wins she had back into her gambling and did not know when to stop.
  7. [85]
    Star says with respect to the property worth $2,200,000 to $3,200,000, that is not a liquid asset unless sold and she has not established that she does not still spend 54% of her income.
  8. [86]
    Star references a document entitled Queensland Responsible Gambling Resource Manual, a document developed in conjunction between the Department of Justice and Attorney-general and Queensland casinos. At item 2.4A there are a number of suggested problem gambling risk indicators listed:
    1. suffering from depression and/or having thoughts of suicide due to gambling behaviour
    2. displaying anger, kicking machines, looking sad and/or crying
    3. having an unrealistic perception about the chance/odds of winning
    4. gambling every day of the week
    5. gambling continuously without taking a break for extended periods of time
    6. trying obsessively to win on a particular machine
    7. blaming the venue, the staff or gaming machines because they lost
    8. getting cash out from an ATM at the venue on multiple occasions
    9. trying to borrow, ’scam’ money or sell valuables to others for gambling
    10. putting large win amounts back into the machine and continuing to play
    11. friends or relatives calling or arriving to ask if the person is still at the venue
    12. spending too much time and/or money gambling.
  9. [87]
    The Resource Manual suggests one should look for clusters of three or more indicators, but notes casino employees are not trained counsellors.
  10. [88]
    It might be said that SB ticks two of the risk indicators, crying and spending too much time or money gambling, but not any other indicator.
  11. [89]
    I note in a statement of evidence[7] Star also mentions 31 risk indicators of problem gambling-related harm, from a publication which has not been put into evidence or otherwise mentioned or considered at hearing or addressed in final submissions. That gives no assistance.
  12. [90]
    Then there is the DSM-5 paper referred to (but also not made available) by the psychologist who prepared a report. Again, mere mention of that is of little assistance.
  13. [91]
    The legislation itself offers no guidance as to the meaning of the reference in s 99C to a person experiencing harm from gambling being characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time spent on gambling; nor the additional requirement that the behaviour also adversely affect the person or other people or the community.
  14. [92]
    The use of the conjunctive ‘and’ between s 99C(a) and s 99C(b) suggests both limbs must be satisfied.
  15. [93]
    There is no evidence that another family member is affected by SB’s gambling. Indeed there is no evidence that she has any other family members. There is no evidence that there are any friends or relatives affected, nor that any such have called or arrived at the casino to ask after her. The only friends mentioned have been friends she met at the casino itself with her Aunt when she returned to Australia from the USA to care for her Aunt. There is nothing to suggest any effect on the community.
  16. [94]
    At hearing the following exchange occurred between Mr Toleafoa for Star and SB’s solicitor:

MR TREANOR:   So on each of the occasions where there’s a net positive, (SB) cashed out and didn’t exhaust those funds, did she?‑‑‑Sorry?

So where there’s a net positive, so let’s say we take the first page ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yep.

‑ ‑ ‑ halfway down the first entry, there’s a positive, is $426.50?‑‑‑Yes. 

So that’s where (SB) has cashed out with a profit – a win, is that correct?‑‑‑It’s where she’s [indistinct] now, yes.

Yes.  So she hasn’t stayed on the machine and just kept going until all the money was gone?‑‑‑Well, no, I don’t believe so.

Thank you.  And you would accept in making your assessment, it’s not just the income that should be considered in terms of a person’s capacity to gamble at a certain rate of spending?‑‑‑Yes, correct.

And if I could put a couple of scenarios to you, a person with an income of 50,000 a year, no assets or savings, could not reasonably afford to spend 30,000 a year on gambling, could they?‑‑‑It’s reasonable. 

But a person who has an income of 50,000 a year, assets in excess of three and a-half million could reasonably afford to spend 30,000 a year?‑‑‑Yes.

  1. [95]
    Mr Toleafoa’s evidence, given openly and commendably honestly, favours SB. Not only does he agree SB was able to walk away from the casino with a win (indeed the casino record shows SB leaving the casino on 29 days taking her wins with her and not feeding them back into gambling), but he also concedes that a person with an income of $50,000 per annum, but with assets of $3,500,000, could afford to lose what the casino has calculated SB has lost.[8]
  2. [96]
    I note, according to Star, every interaction between her and its staff has seen SB cry. That is perhaps something for her to address with her psychologist, but I cannot reasonably attribute that emotional display to any gambling issue she was suffering. It might as much or more perhaps to do with a difficulty interacting with people or perhaps continuing bereavement from the passing of her Aunt.
  3. [97]
    To a certain extent it is arguable that any gambling losses she suffers have a negative effect on her financial standing. However her overall financial position must be taken into account and that seems fairly healthy. Her overall wealth is a factor to be taken into account when considering how the amount of money spent on gambling affects her.
  4. [98]
    She does have some (few) wins and I find she is able to walk away with a win and not gamble on until it becomes a loss.
  5. [99]
    Star contends she is reluctant to set limits on her gambling, but that is associated with the suggestion made to her by Star to limit her weekly spend to $500. That suggestion was agreed to but the Exclusion Direction occurred before her resolve to abide by that agreement could be realistically tested.
  6. [100]
    The time she spends at the casino seems excessive. She does not appear to have family, and she says her friends are all to be found at the casino. What part of the time at the casino she spends socialising with friends and what time gambling is not addressed by either party. Objectively speaking, on the information to hand I find she does have difficulty limiting the amount of time spent gambling.
  7. [101]
    I am unable to conclude however that the second limb of s 99C(b) is satisfied. As stated, she does not appear to have other family. Her friends are at the casino. There is no evidence of queries made from outside about her time spent at the casino or her gambling habits.
  8. [102]
    As such I determine there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SB is a person experiencing or at risk of experiencing harm from gambling.
  9. [103]
    The Exclusion Direction should be set aside.
  10. [104]
    I might add, SB has been the author of much of her own difficulties in the matter at hand. Star was acting responsibly in asking her about her financial standing as a carer on a fortnightly benefit, but she either failed to comprehend what reasonable information was being sought or avoided providing it. Her full disclosure of her financial standing from outset may well have resulted in a very different conclusion reached by Star that she was a person experiencing harm from gambling.

Footnotes

[1]  Prior to amendment in March 2024 the reference in s 93A was to “problem gambler” which was defined in the schedule to the Act as: problem gambler means a person whose behaviour relating to gambling— (a) is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling; and (b) leads to adverse consequences for the person, other persons or the community.

[2]  Section 91A(1) deals with reviews from a decision of the Chief Executive rather than a decision of a casino operator or manager.

[3] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20.

[4]  at [46].

[5]  That is not the case with respect to reviews of a decision made by the Chief Executive – see s 91B and s 91C. (Note - Prior to the Tribunal commencing in 2009, appeals from decisions of the chief executive went to the Queensland Gaming Commission. Appeals from a decision by a casino operator or manager to exclude a person from a casino went to the Magistrates Court. With the creation of the Tribunal, the appeal to the Gaming Commission and the appeal to the Magistrates Court changed to the Tribunal for both, but generally maintain the different approach to hearings and available point in time evidence depending on the identity of the original decision maker).

[6]  Gambling Disorder is a psychiatric condition with severity typically defined by the number of DSM-5 criteria met.

[7]  Exhibit 4.

[8]  SB claims a current income of over $56,000 (Applicant’s Outline submissions handed up at hearing [20]).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 591

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Howe

  • Date:

    19 Dec 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) HCA 31
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) HCA 31
Cite 2 - (2008) HCA 31

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino [2025] QCAT 1942 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.