Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited
[2025] QCAT 117
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited[2025] QCAT 117
- Add to List
Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited[2025] QCAT 117
Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited[2025] QCAT 117
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited [2025] QCAT 117 |
PARTIES: | john vaughan (applicant) v the Star entERTainment Qld limited (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR432-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 25 February 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 24 January 2025 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Richard Oliver |
ORDERS: |
|
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 failed to follow the respondents policies about play time and play breaks – where the calculation of play time was inaccurate – where several incidents of extended play – whether the applicant confused about the extended play policy – 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 and s 99C Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 20 and s 24 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | Self-Represented |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]The respondent operates a number of gambling casinos in Australia, but relevantly for this application, at the Gold Coast and Brisbane. The applicant is a keen gambler. He has been gambling at the Star casinos for many years, in excess of 30 years. He is an inaugural Diamond Star Member, which membership confers on him special privileges. For example, because he lives in northern New South Wales, he is able to stay at the Star casino at Surfers Paradise for no charge.
- [2]A diamond member is expected to turnover significant sums over a 12 month period. Again, to demonstrate the extent of his gambling, he has a credit with Star of $35,000.00 which he can access when playing at any time.
- [3]Between 2021 and 2023, some issues arose where Star’s representatives were concerned that the applicant was showing signs of being a person experiencing harm from gambling (“a problem gambler”).[1] The particulars of the incidents which gave rise to this concern are in summary:
- The applicant engaged in behaviour whereby he was rude to staff and displayed strong emotions when gambling;
- On five (5) occasions in a 15 – month period he gambled for long periods without an adequate break;
- On two occasions when informed he needed to have a 12 hour break, he ignored staff and stayed in the gaming area and on one occasion he was found playing a gaming machine (slots) without using his Star Club Membership card in the machine.
- Finally, there was an allegation he was lending money to another person, a $5,000.00 chip and he received a $1,000.00 chip from another player.[2]
- [4]As a consequence of these matters and in line with Star’s responsibilities under the Casino Control Act 1982 (“CCA”), its safe gambling policies and exclusion policy, on 29 May 2025 the applicant was issued with an Exclusion Direction under s 93A of the CCA. This Direction prohibited the applicant from entering or remaining on The Star Gold Coast and Treasury Brisbane casinos, also taking part in keno gaming or other approved wagering at the casinos.
- [5]On 27 June 2023, the applicant filed an application to review the respondent’s decision under s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (“the QCAT Act”). The function of the Tribunal in a review of an administrative decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. Jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal under s 91A(2) of the CCA.
Legislation
- [6]The operation of casinos in Queensland is regulated by and under the CCA. The objects of the CCA are to ensure a balance between the State and community to ensure integrity and fairness in gambling; probity of those who conduct casino gambling and minimising harm to those engaged in casino gambling.
- [7]Section 91E sets out the duties of officer in relation to the lawful and appropriate operation of a casino. This includes ensuring there is a safe gambling environment.
- [8]Section 93A authorises a casino operator to exclude a person who is experiencing harm from gambling. It provides:
- 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
- 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.
- If a casino operator or a casino manager decides to give a person an exclusion direction, the direction must be accompanied by an information notice for the decision.
- [9]Section 99C sets out the indicia of a person experiencing harm from gambling and is a reference to a person whose behaviour:
- is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling; and
- is adversely affecting the person, other persons or the community.
The respondent’s operational guidelines
- [10]In compliance with the CCA and to ensure safe and responsible gambling practices and environment, the respondent adopted a number of guides and manuals. The respondent had regard to the Queensland responsible gambling “Code of Practice”. This Code sets out a number of principles to assist casino operators to focus on a patron’s well-being in the gambling environment. In particular to ensure patrons are discouraged from engaging in intensive and repetitive play.
- [11]There is also a publication by the Queensland Government, Queensland Responsible Gambling Guide resource manual, which provides information to both the operator and patrons about the risks of gambling, interaction between patrons and the operator and the practice for exclusion. This involves self-exclusion and also exclusion by the casino if a patron is exhibiting signs of problem gambling. It highlights these signs which include:
- Gambling continuously without taking a break for extended periods;
- Blaming the venue, the staff or gaming machines because they lost;
- Displaying anger, kicking machines, looking sad and/or crying;
- Trying to borrow money;
- Putting large win amounts back into the machine and keep playing; and
- Spending too much time and/or money gambling.
- [12]This manual also included information about the physical environment of gambling venues and the operators. An example is a prohibition in offering alcoholic beverages to promote gaming activities, but offering non-alcoholic beverages (tea and coffee) to encourage breaks in play. There is a section on breaks in play and the training of staff to monitor playing times and activity.
- [13]In addition to the above the respondent implemented its own exclusion policies for those patrons it deemed to be problem gamblers. The is an onus on the respondent to identify and address problem gambling. The respondent also had to ensure it was not exposed to regulatory risk by not taking measures to address problem gambling and addressing its statutory obligations under the CCA. If a patron was exhibiting any of the indicia of problem gambling, the preferred course, with the assistance of the respondent was to self-exclude. If the patron was not amenable to self-exclusion the respondent’s exclusion policy could be implemented. This is what occurred here.
- [14]It does from time to time, email patrons with updates on its policies for safer gambling. One such relevant update is that which became effective on 8 June 2023.
Operational matters.
- [15]The respondent issues a membership card to a player which is used to track the time spent gambling at the casino. In respect of table play (e.g. roulette and blackjack) the card is used (swiped) to record the time of the commencement of play. For machines, the card is swiped in the machine to record playing time.
- [16]The time is then electronically recorded in the respondent’s “patron profile” for each player. In respect of the applicant the respondent produced his patron profile report identifying him with a player profile number and logs his playing history from June 2021 to June 2023.[3]
- [17]A regular patron, like the applicant, can be assigned a patron liaison manager (PLA or host). The host will communicate with the patron, monitor the patron profile and deal with any incidents which might be indicative of problem gambling. It is a support function implemented by the respondent as part of its overall responsible gambling protocol.
- [18]The play break policy implemented by the respondent is also an integral part of the responsible gambling protocols. It is recommended that players take a 15 minute break every 3 hours when playing the electronic games and electronic table games. Players take at least a 30 minute break after playing for 6 hours. Also, and again relevantly here, a player, will not be permitted to gamble for more that 12 hours within a 24 hour period.[4]
The applicant’s Patron Profile Report (“PPR”)
- [19]The PPR records the particulars of conduct upon which the respondent relies to justify its decision to exclude the applicant because of its reasonable belief he was exhibiting signs of problem gambling. I should record that the applicant does not necessarily disagree with the occurrences mentioned, but submits the respondent overreacted in circumstances where its play break policies were ambiguous, particularly in respect of the last incident, which I will come to.
- [20]The entry on 19 June 2021 records the applicant’s behaviour at the blackjack table whereby he showed signs of frustration and aggression, presumably from losing, during play. This included smashing chips onto the table, eyeballing the dealer and complaining about being dealt “lousy cards”. A little over a month later, 24 July 2021, he was spoken to by a PLA about his conduct. He was warned that this behaviour could lead to exclusion. It is worth noting that the PLA recorded that there had been no other issues about “hosting him” (the applicant).
- [21]The applicant generally accepts he behaved in this manner but contends it was a one-off. In his written submission, and orally, he concedes he “had inappropriately allowed” his frustrations to get the better of him. He expressed remorse for this behaviour and there was no repeat of it before the exclusion notice was issued.
- [22]In February 2022 there were instances of going over the time play policy. Again, he was spoken to about this to ensure he understood the policy. His response was that the policy had changed several times in recent years, and this led to some confusion. In particular the 12 hour play break policy was calculated in a 24 hour period not the length of time for consistent play. An example is if he started play at, say 7pm and played for 5 hours, then retired to his room, and resumed play at 10am the next day, and if he played for another 7 hours, up to 5pm, he would be in breach of the policy.
- [23]There was another incident on 17 October 2022 where he was again spoken to about exceeding the 12 hour policy. He exceeded the policy by 38 minutes. Again, the applicant relates this to confusion about the operation of the policy. The is some evidence to support his stated confusion in an email of 27 November 2022 to the respondent which is recorded in the PPR at page 11/17.
Whatever the mysterious clock the new reporting regime works on; The manner in which it works needs to be clearly stated in writing and published on say the diamond or other app so that patrons like myself are not put in positions which are frankly embarrassing and perplexing.
This new completely confusing regime is clearly contrary to the published Star policy which states only you can decide.
Clearly some clarification is urgently required if this is the current written policy. To me it makes completely no sense if you have had a meal a long sleep and a break of 8, 10 12 hours that time spent prior is still calculated and the clock is not reset.
To me this is just the tip of the iceberg of many recent arbitrary said policy changes that have seriously eroded the said “Star Experience”……
- [24]There was another meeting with the applicant on 20 December 2022 described as a welfare check. During that meeting, the issue of play break came up and there was further discussion about how the policy operated. Again, this is evidence of the applicant’s subjective confusion about the operation of the play break policy.
- [25]The event that ultimately resulted in the exclusion was that of the 23 May 2023, which the applicant refers to the “trigger event”. His time was being monitored and at 3.30pm it is recorded that he was told by a host that he had to leave the gaming area in 40 minutes. The applicant stated he would leave at 5pm. This then led to a further discussion with the respondent’s staff whereby the applicant insisted he be able to stay for the “diamond draw”, in which he may be a potential winner because of his membership. He told the staff members that he played the night before, then had an 8 hour break and returned to the licensed area to play. He did not believe, or accept, he was in breach of the 12 hour play break policy.
- [26]Floor managers then became involved and the applicant was given a play break brochure which set out the policy. The applicant refused to accept the brochure and kept referring to that app on his mobile phone, which included the policy. From this the applicant stated that time, under the 12 hour policy, started again when he resumed play that morning. Hence, he was not in breach of the policy. Ultimately, the applicant left the licensed area and venue.
- [27]Subsequently, when the applicant’s gambling time on the 28 May 2023 was reviewed. This review establishes that in fact the applicant had not exceeded the “real time” play by 44 minutes therefore was under the threshold for the application of the 12 hour play break policy. One could observe that if, on the afternoon of 28 May 2023, this was realised, the interaction between the staff and the applicant as recorded in the PPR would have been avoided.
Lending money
- [28]The other ground for exclusion is the allegation that the applicant paid a friend with a $5,000 chip on 3 June 2022. He was spoken to about this by the respondent’s staff. After providing an explanation about paying for a TV he had purchased from the friend, no further action was taken.
- [29]Similarly with the payment of $1,000 chip to the applicant from another friend, purportedly in repayment for a dinner, the applicant accepts he was warned about exchanging chips at the table. Handing over chips to another player at the playing table is against policy. The applicant accepts this.
The Exclusion
- [30]After this incident, there was a meeting within the respondents Safer Gambling Team and the exclusion notice issued. Prior to this there was a discussion with one of the respondent’s team members where the applicant was offered a “self-exclusion” but this was refused. The exclusion stays in effect for five (5) years but after 12 months an excluded individual may apply to the casino to have it removed.
Discussion
- [31]The events recorded in the PPR, and then having regard to the respondent’s policies, responsibilities under the CCA, the respondent contends that the decision to exclude the applicant was reasonable in the circumstances. His reaction to being directed to stop play in 44 minutes, and his insistence on remaining until 5pm (even though the timing was in error) demonstrates his reluctance to abide by the policies and work with the respondent to ensure safe gambling practices.
- [32]The respondent contends that the applicant was aware of the play break polices, and the only way they could work was on a 24 hour clock, not the way the way the applicant would prefer they work. Also, the policies were explained on number of occasions. There is no basis for the purported confusion on the part of the applicant as to the policies.
- [33]The applicant contends it was the “trigger event” on 28 May 2023 that resulted in the exclusion. The policy relied upon by the respondent did not come into effect until 3 June 2023. However, there can be no doubt that prior to this the 12 hour play break policy was in place and is evidenced in the respondent’s statement of reasons.
- [34]However, the fact is that on 28 May 2023 the applicant had not fallen foul of the policy. As to the preceding events, the evidence from the PPR does indicate that the applicant was having some difficulty in understanding the way the policy worked. It was clarified by the staff of the respondent, and it seems was followed by the applicant.
- [35]As for the money lending allegation, although the applicant accepts that money, by way of chips, did change hands, there were valid reasons for this. However, it was reasonable for the respondent to be suspicious about this conduct.
- [36]There are other factors to be taken into account to decide if the applicant is potentially a problem gambler. The applicant lives in northern New South Wales and travels to the Star casino at Broadbeach. When he does visit the casino, he generally stays for one or two nights. He is not a frequent visitor. Between 17 September 2022 and 28 May 2023, he visited the casino on 15 occasions.
- [37]He is a foundation member of the respondent’s Diamond Star Club and has been a member for over 30 years. Prior to the recorded incidents in the PPR there have been no other incidents which might indicate problem gambling. He is content to gamble large sums and the brochure he submitted at the hearing support this history. To maintain Diamond membership, a high gambling turnover is required.
- [38]Another factor to consider is that by the exclusion he has lost benefits gained as a Diamond Club member. This includes many nights of free accommodation at the casino, about 40, and other associated benefits, including Star points which he can use on beverages and meals at the casino.
- [39]The applicant summarises his position as follows:
- The trigger event was founded on a misapprehension and miscalculation of the crucial time limits;
- The relevant policy on which the respondent relies was not yet enacted;
- The respondent’s records do not substantiate their submission.
- [40]The evidence produced in this review hearing establishes that the points made above by the applicant are correct. He did not breach the play break policy, and the updated policy had not been implemented at the time. As for the last point, what he is contending is that given his subjective confusion about the policies, his history and personal financial circumstance[5] as recorded in the PPR, there was no basis to issue the exclusion notice.
- [41]I accept that the first incident at the tables in 2021 was a one-off incident and he has expressed his regret and remorse for the incident. It has not been repeated.
- [42]Having regard to all the circumstances involved in the matter, I am not reasonably satisfied that the applicant did exhibit signs of problem gambling during the relevant period.
- [43]On review I have come to the conclusion that the correct and preferable decision is that the exclusion notice should be set aside. Although under s 24 of the QCAT Act I can only set aside the decision and substitute my own decision, it is reasonable to expect the respondent to reinstate all benefits accrued by the applicant at the time of the exclusion.
- [44]Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is that:
- The decision of the respondent of 29 May 2023 to issue an Exclusion Direction to the applicant is set aside.