Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino - [2025] QCAT 194

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

Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino[2025] QCAT 194

Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino[2025] QCAT 194

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino [2025] QCAT 194

PARTIES:

James Frederick Pritchard

(applicant)

v

Breakwater Island Limited TRADING AS The Ville Resort-Casino

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR331-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Townsville

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

  1. The Tribunal record is to be amended to reflect the name of the respondent to be

‘Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino’

  1. The respondent’s decision of 9 February 2024 to issue to the applicant an ‘exclusion direction’ under s 93A(2) of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

GAMING AND LIQUOR – ADMINISTRATION – CASINOS – CASINO OPERATIONS – a regular patron in a casino demonstrated an increasing disposition to gambling larger amounts on more regular intervals, on occasions up to almost $100,000 in one day – the patron contemporaneously was showing increasing daily losses – where the evidence showed the patron was gambling money received from an insurance payout for total and permanent disability – where the patron’s only source of income was a disability support pension – where the Casino intervened and issued the patron with an exclusion notice preventing him from entering the casino – whether the Casino’s decision to do so was a proper exercise of the discretion to exclude in the circumstances of what was said by the patron to be a failure of its membership pre-commitment level control system

Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 3, s 91A, s 93A, s 99C

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 15, s 25, s 48

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24

Camilleri v Star Entertainment Group Ltd t/as The Star Gold Coast [2025] QCAT 23

Penfold v Firkn & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11

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

Vaughn v The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd [2025] QCAT 117

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Counsel - Mr C. Curtis

Solicitor – HWL Ebsworth

REASONS FOR DECISION

A Preliminary Issue

  1. [1]
    At the start of the hearing, the respondent’s Counsel identified that the name of the respondent was incorrectly recorded within the Tribunal’s records, it being a trading name only. He requested that it be changed to ‘Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Casino.
  2. [2]
    That was an appropriate request to make. I gave an order to that effect.

Overview

  1. [3]
    Mr Pritchard has been a regular patron of the Ville Casino in Townsville, it being a casino operated by the respondent (the Casino). He was identified as a ‘President Member’ which I understand to be a class of membership at the upper end of the scale of members who regularly attend and gamble at the casino. Up until February 2024 he had amassed a reasonably sized bundle of membership benefits which he valued at around $30,000.
  2. [4]
    In late 2003 he was the recipient of a substantial insurance payout for total and permanent disability, and contemporaneously a payout of his superannuation. At the time he had no other source of income. By the time of the hearing before me he was receiving a disability support pension, but that was his sole source of income.
  3. [5]
    The Casino’s records show that Mr Pritchard had engaged in an elevated level of gambling since August 2023, and from early December 2023 he started gambling very large amounts, on one day recording a gambling turnover of around $97,000.
  4. [6]
    On 1 February 2024, Mr Pritchard had placed a ‘pre-commitment’ level on his membership card. Such is designed to alert a patron when their gambling on a particular occasion will cause them to exceed that level. If exceeded, it does not prevent a patron from continuing to gamble, it only restricts their use of their membership card and thus obtaining membership benefits. The level placed was said to be $100. However there was a technical error and the level placed was only $10.
  5. [7]
    On the evening of 2 February 2024, Mr Pritchard attended at the casino and engaged in gambling on electronic machines. His pre-commitment level was reached very quickly. However, notwithstanding that, he continued to gamble more than $20,000 ultimately losing more than $10,000.
  6. [8]
    Mr Pritchard blamed the casino for his losses, asserting that its control systems failed because of the technical error placing only a $10 level on his card rather than the $100 level.
  7. [9]
    Ultimately, this led to the Casino issuing Mr Pritchard with an ‘exclusion direction’ as it was permitted to do under s 93A of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (CC Act), such which prohibits Mr Pritchard from entering or remaining in the casino. This was on the premise that the Casino operator / manager believed on reasonable ground that Mr Pritchard was experiencing, or was at the risk of experiencing, harm from gambling.
  8. [10]
    By way of his application to this Tribunal, Mr Pritchard challenged that decision. He said that the statements made by the Casino which led to its decision to exclude him are not correct, but rather he had been persecuted by the Casino and in turn lost his accrued membership benefits which he wanted to get back. He also wanted the ban on him entering the casino lifted.
  9. [11]
    In the hearing before me, Mr Pritchard accepted, on questioning from me, that he had demonstrated an inability to discipline himself and stop gambling, and that his conduct was the manifestation of somebody who could not control their gambling habits. He also accepted under cross-examination that the money he was gambling, and in turn losing, was money that came from his total and permanent disability insurance payout.
  10. [12]
    As to why he asserted the Casino was wrong to have stepped in and protected him by excluding him, his answer was – “it was action too late, they should have stepped in earlier”.
  11. [13]
    Put simply, there was no substance to Mr Pritchard’s argument. The Casino’s decision to issue him with an exclusion direction was an appropriate one. His answer to which I have just referred is of itself an admission by him that this was so. On this review I found it to be the correct and preferable decision. Thus I gave an order confirming it.

Relevant Facts and Circumstances[1]

  1. [14]
    In August 2023, Mr Pritchard had a total and permanent disability insurance claim approved. It provided him with a payout of what was said to be to be six (6) payments of $27,000 each, which I understood to be a yearly payout in 2023 and then over the following five years. He also received at around the same time approximately $130,000 from his superannuation.[2]
  1. [15]
    From 1 August 2023 to 2 February 2024, Mr Pritchard attended the Casino on an average of 2 to 2.5 days per week.[3] During that time, Mr Pritchard had no income and no ability to earn income, and had savings of around only $20,000,[4], however the Casino records show that Mr Pritchard gambled as ‘coin-in’ a total of $527,412 resulting in a ‘slot-loss’ of $14,513, but after accounting for what is recorded as ‘Free Play Used’ it gave a nett loss of $6,101, on two occasions the daily loss exceeding $10,000[5] (the Gambling Record).
  2. [16]
    On 17 November 2023, Mr Pritchard placed a pre-commitment level as part of a program provided by the Casino for its member patrons that allows a patron to set a daily limit of a nominated $ amount as an acceptable loss. That was set at $100.00.[6] He removed it 20 days later on 7 December 2023.[7]
  3. [17]
    On 1 February 2024, he again placed a pre-commitment level on his membership. It was supposed to be again at $100, but a fault had occurred and it was set at only $10.[8]
  4. [18]
    On 2 February 2024 Mr Pritchard was at the casino. As he commenced his gambling his pre-commitment level was very quickly reached. Despite having placed it only the day before, he then requested it be removed.[9] He continued gambling, ultimately expending $22,864 as ‘coin-in’ and losing in excess of $10,000.[10]
  5. [19]
    What also occurred that evening is as recorded in an internal e-mail written contemporaneously with the events as they subsequently unfolded, it being in part as follows:[11]

J. Pritchard has initially approached myself at the Promotions desk to speak with a gaming manager in regards (sic) to his turnover and pre-commitment.

… James has expressed that he believes we have failed to protect him after he has identified that he is a ‘problem gambler’ and placed a pre-commitment on himself. James had stated that he was supposed to have only a daily net loss of $100 and this evening because this commitment had ‘failed’, he had lost approximately $13,000. James during this conversation was extremely emotional (crying) and his behaviour was erratic. James had said that he frequently lies when asked about his play and is currently gambling with payment from his superannuation which is due to run-out shortly, (sic) James expressed that once he runs out of money he would likely harm himself. James has stated his dissatisfaction and explained that the resolution he would be satisfied with is for the casino to pay him what he has lost for the evening and he would self-exclude and never return. ... James has then once more requested to speak with a member of senior management. … James was quite angry and described himself as ‘livid’ by the situation.

… James and myself have then proceeded outside of the casino and spoken on the smoking balcony … . James has asked if he would be refused if he walked out and it was explained that due to concerns surrounding his gambling that he would be refused and that he should consider taking a breach for the weekend as he is highly emotional at this time. James initially declined and stated that he just wanted to drink with his friends and would not continue to gamble. James was told that this would not be a sufficient outcome. … I have then gone to the Orpheous Room and left James near the ATM’s telling him that he would not be allowed back into the casino and to let me know if he needed assistance getting home.

When I have returned to the main gaming floor, I have been informed by staff that James was still on-site and at the Sports Bar. EGM Supervisor Grace Hayes was advised of the situation and due to the nature of the conversation that took place, Grace was asked to remove the patron with the assistance of Security. Grace has approached James on the gaming floor along with SSM Hamish, James has argued that he would not be leaving this evening and he would like to continue to drink before requesting Grace contacted (sic) myself to come and speak with him.

I have approached the Casino 3 main entry location where James was stopped by security. … I have spoken with James at the entrance and advised him that he would have to leave site. James proceeded to yell and became increasingly agitated when engaging with myself and security and it is at this time that security have taken control of the situation. James has then asked myself to walk him outside to which I have had to decline as Security were handling the matter, (sic) SSM Hamish has then walked James outside where he has begun to cry once more.

  1. [20]
    What then followed was engagement between Mr Pritchard and the Casino management team in terms of the possibility of Mr Pritchard self-excluding. But Mr Pritchard did not commit to self-exclusion. Thus, by a document signed 9 February 2024 the Casino’s Harm Minimisation Officer Mr Thomas Stevens issued an exclusion direction to Mr Pritchard (the Decision).[12] That prevented Mr Pritchard from returning to the casino and so continue with his gambling.
  2. [21]
    On 17 May 2024 Mr Pritchard applied to this Tribunal for a review of the Decision.[13] The essence of his reasons as to why he says the Decision is wrong was expressed therein as follows:[14]

The membership level I reached came with complimentary rooms, daily meals, and drinks for a 6-month period, why should I lose all that I had worked hard to get because of their incompetence, their systems failure, and their lack of procedure to follow through. To be honest I feel victimised and believe this knee-jerk overaction (sic) was mostly an ass-covering exercise to hide the fact that they lacked in the harm minimisation area they preach so loudly about. I believe the correct outcome would be to start me back from before the ban and give me my members card back to 3rd February, with the daily loss limit in place as I originally intended on having from the first day I was told not to come in (3rd February 2024)

  1. [22]
    It was against this background that the proceeding came before me for hearing.

The Relevant Law

The Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld)

  1. [23]
    As it was enacted at the time of the Decision, the relevant provisions under the CC Act was as follows:

3  Object

  1. The object of this Act is to ensure that, on balance, the State and the community as a whole benefit from casino gambling.
  1. The balance is achieved by allowing casino gambling subject to a system of regulation and control designed to protect players and the community through—
  1. …;
  1. …;and
  1. minimising the potential for harm from casino gambling.

93A  Exclusion direction for problem gambler

  1. This section applies if a casino operator or a casino manager believes on reasonable grounds a person is a problem gambler.
  1. The casino operator or casino manager may give the person a notice in the approved form (an exclusion direction) prohibiting the person from entering or remaining in the casino.
  1. …

Schedule

problem gambler means 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. leads to adverse consequences for the person, other persons or the community.
  1. [24]
    As from 30 September 2024, and thus prior to the hearing before me, the legislation was amended in that regard, the relevant provision now being:

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)
  1. ….

99C  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.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

  1. [25]
    There is also the application of the Human Right Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act) that I was required to consider. This is because all statutory provisions, as far as is possible consistent with their purposes, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible, or most compatible, with human rights.[15] Such includes the CC Act.
  2. [26]
    The main objective of the HR Act is to protect and promote fundamental human rights. However the rights listed therein are not exclusive, nor are the rights protected thereunder absolute. They may be limited, but only as far as is reasonable and justifiable.[16] In deciding whether a limit is reasonable and justifiable relevant factors include inter-alia the nature of the human right, the nature and purpose of the limitation, whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the importance of preserving the human right taking into account the nature and extent of the limitation on the human right, and the balance between the last two points.
  3. [27]
    In my opinion a number of human rights were relevant in this proceeding. Such included Mr Pritchard’s right to recognition and equality before the law and his right to privacy and reputation.[17] But such must be considered in terms of the objects of the CC Act – that being ‘minimising the potential for harm from casino gambling’,[18] and the provisions which provide for the discretion to issue an exclusion notice, that being the ‘adverse consequences for the person, other persons, or the community’.[19]
  4. [28]
    That being so, in my opinion there was a competing right that could not be overlooked, and one that was permissibly considered by me that may limit Mr Pritchard’s rights in the circumstances of him wanting to have the exclusion direction revoked. That is the right of other persons and the community to recognition and equality before the law such to be considered and understood in terms of the objects of the CC Act to minimise the potential to them from harm arising from casino gambling.
  5. [29]
    Thus, a decision to exclude Mr Pritchard from the casino, such which might be said to infringe his rights to which I have just referred, will nevertheless be compatible with human rights overall. This is because, despite any limit the decision places on his human rights, the decision will be justified by the factors outlined under s 13 of the HR Act. This is because, amongst other things it will have the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights of others and the community.
  6. [30]
    Moreover, any limitation on Mr Pritchard’s human rights remains consistent with the objects of the CC Act as it pertains to him personally, being to minimise the potential for harm from casino gambling. That being so, to the extent Mr Pritchard is afforded a right under the HR Act, in making the correct and preferable decision, by application of the CC Act in conjunction with the HR Act such right must yield to that objective in a manner permissible under the CC Act. That would include the decision to exclude him from the casino. Such is consistent with s 13 of the HR Act. It is the least restrictive option.

The Issues

  1. [31]
    The challenge raised by Mr Pritchard gives rise to three issues that I was required to decide, namely:
    1. Which of the two provisions that are s 93A of the Act applies in this proceeding?;
    2. Was Mr Pritchard’s behaviour that led to the exclusion direction being issued characteristic of difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time he spends on gambling?; and
    3. Dependant on which version of s 93A is applicable:
      1. Does that behaviour lead to adverse consequences for Mr Pritchard, other persons or the community?; or
      2. Is that behaviour adversely affecting Mr Pritchard, other persons or the community?

The Evidence

From Mr Pritchard

  1. [32]
    Mr Pritchard presented evidence-in-chief by way of written statements from two witnesses, namely himself,[20] and a Mr Shubin.[21]
  2. [33]
    That evidence was little more that than which I identified in paragraph [21] herein as extracted from the attachment to his application, as well as Mr Pritchard making some comments on what he asserted occurred between 2 February 2024 and when he received the exclusion direction which he says occurred on 12 February 2024.
  3. [34]
    With my leave Mr Pritchard also gave oral evidence-in-chief whereby he sought to challenge much of the statements of persons given from the Casino in this proceeding. Whilst much of what he had to say went to the issue the subject of his ‘complaint’ and that which was in his written evidence, there were two aspects of it I considered probative.
  4. [35]
    The first was in terms of his conversation with Mr Riley Wolstencroft which was the subject of the e-mail I referred to in paragraph [19] herein. Mr Pritchard stated this in the hearing:[22]

At that stage I had stopped gambling prior to 8:30 pm – still two draws left. I still had $1500 in my pocket.

  1. [36]
    The second of those was in response to the statement from Mr Jonathon Latimer, he being a Cage Shift Manager for the Casino whose statement I refer to shortly in these reasons. Mr Pritchard stated this in the hearing:

Jonathon Pritchard processed two $5,000 transactions for me after the card limit was lifted.

  1. [37]
    There was no cross-examination of Mr Shubin. However the cross-examination of Mr Pritchard was relatively extensive. As I listened to that cross-examination, much of it seemed to me to be directed to addressing as necessary Mr Pritchard’s assertions about the Casino’s harm minimization process having failed. As I mention it later herein that was, in my opinion, an entirely irrelevant aspect of the case Mr Pritchard sought to run in this proceeding, and for that reason I did not see there was any purpose for me to lay out in these reasons any aspect of that part of the cross-examination.
  2. [38]
    What I did see as relevant and probative was the following exchanges between Mr Pritchard and the Casino’s Counsel Mr Curtis. There were as follows:
Mr CurtisIt is fair to say that after 30 September 2023 you had significant losses that involved using your insurance payout.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou accept you had challenged with gambling from 30 September 2023 onwards.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisBy February 2024 had anything changed in terms of your insurance payout.
Mr PritchardNo.
Mr CurtisThe Casino is reliant on a Table which is the Annexure to its Outline of Argument filed in this proceeding that shows your level of gambling from 1 August 2023 to 2 February 2024 – Do you accept that?
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou were losing money that was coming out of your insurance payout.
Mr PritchardYes – but what comes out goes back in over the next five years.
Mr CurtisOn the night of 2 February 2024 something had gone wrong with the pre-commitment level.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisThe day prior to set up the pre-commitment level at $100.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisThat was the amount you had set as being prepared to lose.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisThis was to operate as a warning to you.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisAre you now saying $100 was not the amount you were prepared to lose.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou decided to stay in the Casino and keep gambling on the electronic gaming machines.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou continued to bet, using two lots of $5,000.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisThis was a large amount of money for you.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou know at one stage you were $5,000 down.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisBut you put another $5,000 down.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou lost $10,000 and have no problem at all with the Casino.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisThat $10,000 came out of your insurance claim money.
Mr PritchardYes.
Mr CurtisYou had no other source of income.
Mr PritchardNo – but I now have a disability support pension.
  1. [39]
    At that point I asked Mr Pritchard as to from when he was receiving such a pension. His response was that he was approved for such in late 2024 with it being backdated 18 months to early 2023.

From the Casino

  1. [40]
    There was extensive evidence presented to me from the Casino. It was as follows:
    1. A copy of the Exclusion Direction and accompanying Information Notice;[23]
    2. The ‘Statement of Reasons’ for the Decision;[24]
    3. A statement of Jonathon Latimer;[25]
    4. A statement of Mr Alan Carr, the Casino’s Compliance Manager;[26]
    5. A statement of Mr Christian Agapiou, one of the Casino’s VIP Service Executives;[27]
    6. A statement of Mr Thomas Stevens, the Casino’s Harm Minimisation Officer.[28]
  2. [41]
    The vast majority of these written statements contained information concerning various discussions with Mr Pritchard, and observations by the persons giving the statement of Mr Pritchard’s behaviour, all during the period August 2023 to February 2024. In my opinion, whilst it was helpful in terms of providing context to the arguments Mr Pritchard was making and the reasons why the Decision was ultimately made, it was not necessary for me to set out any of it in detail in these reasons, it being sufficient to describe it as evidence which identified to me that Mr Pritchard’s conduct during that time was at various times erratic showing a pattern of increasing engagement in gambling whilst simultaneously demonstrating that his gambling was causing him distress.
  3. [42]
    There were however two aspects of it which in my opinion were probative, such which I set out here.
  4. [43]
    Firstly, there is the Gambling Record that I referred to in paragraph [15] herein. Of that record, activities on certain days stood out, namely:
    1. 31 October 2023 – gambled $36,773 – net winnings $1,252;
    2. 13 November 2023 – gambled $58,381 – net loss $1,089;
    3. 17 November 2023 – gambled $51,937 – net loss $10,824;
    4. 7 December 2023 – gambled $97,918 – net winnings of $1,073;
    5. 9 December 2023 – gambled $40,197 – net loss of $30;
    6. 26 December 2023 – gambled $51,199 – net win $3,143;
    7. 29 January 2024 – gambled $28,879 – net loss $2,290;
    8. 31 January 2024 – gambled $69,717 – net win $5,247; and
    9. 2 February 2024 – gambled $22,864 – net loss $10,538.
  5. [44]
    Secondly, in Mr Latimer’s statement, he explained his interaction with Mr Pritchard in the following manner:

I recall Mr Pritchard approached the Cage and he appeared to be rather anxious.

Mr Pritchard explained that he had a pre-commitment on his card, but that he had hit that pre-commitment limit earlier than was supposed to occur. He explained to me that he didn’t want there to be a ban on his card, because he wanted to be eligible for the cash draws which were occurring that evening.

Mr Pritchard asked me to release his card from the pre-commitment. I explained to him that once his card was released, it would take 24 hours to become effective, so he would still be ineligible for the draws.

Mr Pritchard still instructed me to release his card from pre-commitment. I accessed Mr Pritchard's pre-commitment in PC client and proceeded to “unenroll” him from the pre-commitment. …

  1. [45]
    Mr Pritchard undertook some cross-examination of the Casino’s witnesses, but none of that was of any relevance to the issues for determination in this proceeding. His focus seemed to be on the point he made as the premise for the application, that being the Casino’s harm minimization process had failed. There was no reason for me to detail herein any of what was raised during his cross-examination.

Closing Submissions

From the Casino

  1. [46]
    The day prior to the hearing, Mr Curtis, Counsel for the Casino, had provided to the Tribunal via e-mail his ‘Outline of Submissions’. Therein he explained the manner in which the change in legislation should be addressed and answered. His submission was that the current version should be the one applied, although as I understood his submission it was that effectively it does not matter because notwithstanding the change made in the latter version it did not change the meaning and application of the provisions as it arose in this proceeding. His submission was put as follows:[29]

In either case the essential test is whether there is an objective basis for a view that a person is at risk because of difficulties in limiting the time or money spent on gambling.

  1. [47]
    He went on to submit:[30]

… the issues are whether the tribunal should be satisfied, on an objective basis, that as at 9 February 2024 Mr Pritchard was “experiencing, or was at risk of” behaviour that was:

  1. “characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling”; and
  1. “adversely affecting the person, other persons or the community”.
  1. [48]
    Mr Curtis also made these submissions, such which as I read them effectively encapsulated the evidence as it was put before me:[31]
  1. A striking feature of the application is that the grounds of the application … express a complaint that the Casino was responsible for Mr Pritchard having gambled and lost more than $10,000 on the night of 2 February 2024 because Mr Pritchard was able to have his pre-commitment level removed when there was a technical issued with it.
  1. The complaint is misdirected, as the evidence reveals … that the pre-commitment system operated as a warning only. …
  1. However, the more significant implication of the complaint is that it reveals that Mr Pritchard, even after days had passed and having had time to reflect, regarded himself as being personally unable to prevent himself from gambling significant amounts and losing significant amounts of money through gambling.

…

  1. [49]
    The submissions then referred to the content of the Gambling Record, in particular to some of that which I identified in paragraph [43] herein, with the following being stated therein:
  1. There is also strong objective evidence of significant increases in gambling activity by Mr Pritchard in the period up to 2 February 2024, indicative of both an ongoing loss of control and objective likelihood of financial harm from continued gambling.

…

  1. The particularly concerning nature of the history is that it coincided with Mr Pritchard revealing he had received or was in the process of receiving a significant lump sum payment relating to personal injuries.

…

  1. The loss of amounts of this magnitude should be assessed as particularly harmful given the indications in the evidence that the funds being gambled from early December 2023 are the proceeds of compensation claims for permanent injuries. …

…

  1. The weight to be attached to the evidence is ordinarily assessed according to the ability of each party to produce it. Mr Pritchard has not in the grounds of the application or in his … submissions produced any evidence as to his financial capacity to absorb gambling losses.
  1. [50]
    Mr Curtis developed these submissions somewhat more in his oral closing argument in the following way:
    1. The focus must be on whether Mr Pritchard was:
      1. experiencing ‘difficulties in limiting the amount of money spent on gambling’ and
      2. suffering ‘harm’ to be addressed by asking whether gambling losses can be met through income or only through assets.
    2. Mr Pritchard’s evidence did not address in any way the issues of ‘difficulty’ or ‘harm’, but rather it was focussed in his asserted loss of benefits and desire to retain / regain them; and
    3. In terms of an inability of Mr Pritchard to discipline his gambling, he referred me to the evidence of Mr Pritchard that he had no concerns over the loss of $10,000 on the evening of 2 February, even though he had limited assets and no source of income other than a disability pension.

From Mr Pritchard

  1. [51]
    The closing submissions from Mr Pritchard were entirely oral. They were also short. Save only for some short further argument about the conduct of certain members of the Casino’s staff, he made these points in his oral closing:

I am not focussed on gambling.

I recognised I had a gambling problem so I put a limit in place, but their system failed.

  1. [52]
    Given these submissions, I then engaged in a short question and answer process with Mr Pritchard to ascertain with greater clarity his argument and position in response to the Casino’s case. It was as follows:
MeWhy did you keep going after the limit was exceeded and then blow another $10,000+?
Mr PritchardI was not focussed on gambling.
MeDo you accept you were unable to discipline yourself to stop gambling that night?
Mr PritchardYes.
MeWhat about the earlier history that is up and down?
Mr PritchardI was always in control. Let’s not lose focus. I attempted to put a limit on myself.
MeWhy did you keep going?
Mr PritchardIncrease my chances in the draws.
MeDo you accept your conduct is a manifestation of somebody who cannot control their gambling habits?
Mr PritchardYes at that time. I was a victim of my own emotion on that particular night. I let emotions get the better of me.
MeWhy is it that the Casino is wrong to have stepped in and protected you by exclusion?
Mr PritchardIt was action too late. They should have stepped in earlier.

Discussion on the Contest

The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

  1. [53]
    Whilst there was not any challenge raised in this proceeding as to this Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the issues as they arise herein, there is a fundamental obligation on any court or tribunal to satisfy itself as to jurisdiction when being asked to quell controversies before it.[32] Accordingly, for completeness I make these few brief observations as to the jurisdictional basis upon which I proceeded.
  2. [54]
    This Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the Decision arises under the CC Act s 91A(s), read together with the QCAT Act Chapter 2 Division 3. In constituting the Tribunal for this proceeding, I was required to exercise this jurisdiction in accordance with both those pieces of legislation and the HR Act. In doing so I had all the functions of the decision-maker in terms of the decision to be made.[33]
  3. [55]
    The purpose of the review was to produce the correct and preferable decision, such to be reached by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[34] It was not necessary for me to consider whether the Casino’s decision-maker had made an error in making the Decision, rather the focus was on the cogency of Mr Pritchard’s case as presented to this Tribunal. At the conclusion of the review, I was empowered to confirm or amend the Decision, set aside the Decision and substitute my own decision, or set aside the Decision and return the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration with directions I considered to be appropriate.[35]

Consideration of the Issues

Which version of the legislation prevails

  1. [56]
    Since the amendments to the CC Act as I noted them in paragraphs [23] and [24] herein were made, the occasion for the Tribunal to consider the operation of s 93A has arisen on three separate occasions to the extent decisions have been reported. In each instance the prevailing legislation at the time of the decision under review was the earlier version of the Act, whilst the latter version prevailed at the time of the hearing.
  2. [57]
    In the first of these, the learned Member concluded that nothing turned on the amendment and that the relevant law was that found in the latter provisions.[36] In the second matter, a different learned Member expressed the view he favoured the amended version should prevail but concluded that nothing material turns on the choice between the respective provisions.[37] The issue of the amendments was not addressed in the third of these.[38] Save only for the following comment I generally agree with the discussion on the issue therein, and wish to add only one further comment for the sake of clarity and advancing the consideration of these provisions.
  3. [58]
    In each instance, the first relevant criteria to be identified is “difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling”, and the second is “adverse consequences for the person, other persons or the community”. It is in terms of that second criteria I add the further comment.
  4. [59]
    There was a change made with the amendment. In the earlier version, the connection between the two criteria was that the difficulties were to be something that ‘leads to adverse consequences’ therefore indicating a causal connection must be found in the evidence but one which may be a future consequence not yet having crystalised at the time the exclusion notice was to be issued. In my opinion it provided for an anticipated future adverse effect.
  5. [60]
    In the amended version, the reference to ‘leads to adverse consequences’ was replaced with the words ‘is adversely affecting’ which whilst still requiring the causal connection to be identified, it required the consequence to be present at the time of the exclusion notice being issued. In that regard I respectfully disagree with the learned Member in Camilleri in which he observed it does not appear to ‘materially change the scope’, the material change being that which I just mentioned. Thus, to put it another way, there must be some evidence presented which shows the adverse effect, not merely evidence of the potential for an adverse effect.
  6. [61]
    But in this proceeding, it does not matter either way. This is because, as I discuss it in that which follows here, there was the requisite anticipated future adverse effect at the time of the Decision and also at the time of the hearing, as well as the current adverse effect at the time of the hearing.

Was Mr Pritchard’s behaviour characteristic of difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time he spends on gambling?

  1. [62]
    This can be answered emphatically with a ‘yes’. The evidence presented by the Casino overwhelming showed that to be so.
  2. [63]
    Mr Pritchard’s evidence relevant to this issue was not only confused, but it was also inconsistent within itself. In his statement which accompanied his application which commenced this proceeding, he asserted he had stopped gambling when his limit had been reached. Yet his evidence given in the hearing was something different. As I referred to it in paragraphs [19], [35] to [37], [43](i), and [44], the evidence showed that this was not the case. To the contrary, he had continued to gamble after the limit had been reached, whether it be the required $100 or the erroneously set up $10, and in turn he gambled a total of $22,864 resulting in a net loss of $10,538.
  3. [64]
    Moreover, as I noted it in paragraph [52] herein, on questioning from me in his closing submissions Mr Pritchard conceded he was unable to discipline himself that evening, and that he kept going not focussed on gambling but for the sole purpose of increasing his chances in the draws, from which I infer he did so without seemingly having any regard to the losses he was incurring.
  4. [65]
    Also critically, in the presentation of his own case, Mr Pritchard accepted on several occasions that he had a gambling problem, seemingly asserting that he had recognised such and so endeavoured to put limits in place but that the Casino’s system failed and so did not protect him from his own problem. But, his placement and subsequent removal of same shortly thereafter, as I noted it earlier herein being at least on two occasions and the subsequent substantial amount bet at that time, demonstrates that he lacked the discipline to fulfill and satisfy that endeavour.
  5. [66]
    Additionally, the Gambling Record as I noted it earlier demonstrated an absence of discipline, Mr Pritchard having committed a ‘coin-in’ in excess of $520,000 in a six month period when he had no income and only around $20,000 in savings. Notwithstanding that the nett result overall was a relatively small loss, it was still a loss but moreover it was a very large risk of a substantially much larger and devastating loss that could easily have manifested.
  6. [67]
    There was also the evidence of his conduct on the evening of 2 February as it was recorded by Mr Wolstencroft, the Casino’s Gaming Supervisor, in the e-mail he prepared contemporaneously with that conduct, the relevant part of which I extracted in paragraph [19] herein. This evidence was not substantially challenged by Mr Pritchard in any meaningful way in the hearing. I accepted it as being an accurate record of what occurred that evening and Mr Pritchard’s conduct, it being conduct that in my opinion is consistent with a person who had been adversely affected by the results of uncontrolled gambling.
  1. [68]
    Mr Pritchard’s argument as to an alleged failure of the Casino’s system, even if was accepted that it failed and so did not protect him, an assertion I do not accept as being valid, does not change the fact he has a gambling problem because he has difficulties in limiting the amount of money he spends on gambling.
  2. [69]
    Nor does it change the fact that the absence of his ability to effect this limit has the capacity to both lead to, and resulted in, adverse consequences for him. On his own evidence it was money lost that comes directly out of the funds received from his insurance payout, such being a defined and limited amount. Whilst there was no evidence before me as to what that payout was for nor the manner in which it had been quantified, as it was explained by Mr Pritchard I understood it to be a payout resulting from a personal injury that has left him totally and permanently disabled such that he can no longer work and now has a sole source of income being a disability support pension. From that I infer the payout was a quantum calculate against lost future earnings. That being so, it means Mr Pritchard was gambling and in many instances losing that which he was to earn in the future, and so he was losing that which in effect he did not yet have.
  3. [70]
    In that regard, part of the exchange between Mr Pritchard and Mr Curtis as I referred to it in paragraph [37] herein demonstrates a fundamental flaw in Mr Pritchard’s understanding of his personal circumstances in this regard. He appeared to hold the understanding that notwithstanding he was losing that money when he gambled, it would be replaced by a future payment to be made as part of that payout. Whilst it may be said that is technically correct in terms of a ‘cash out / cash in’ view, it is not the case that he has a payout which will continue in perpetuity until his passing. It will eventually stop and his losses will thus catch up with him if he were to continue down the path of problem gambling without intervention. Such is a manifestation of his difficulties in limiting the amount of money he spends on gambling which would lead to adverse consequences for him. In turn such satisfies the test under s 93A as it was when the Decision was issued.
  4. [71]
    Finally, as Mr Curtis properly and appropriately submitted, Mr Pritchard did not present any evidence which showed his capacity to absorb the gambling losses.
  5. [72]
    In all respects, the test under s 93A of the CC Act, whether it be in terms of the legislative provisions as they were enacted when the Decision was made, or to the extent they had been amended at the time of the hearing before me, it was satisfied. On the evidence before me, I was readily able to find, and I did find, Mr Pritchard to be:
    1. A ‘problem gambler’ as that term was used in s 93A when the Decision was made; and
    2. A ‘person experiencing, or at risk of experiencing harm from gambling’ as that term was used in s 93A when the hearing before me occurred.
  6. [73]
    Moreover, Mr Pritchard’s assertion as I noted it in paragraph [52] herein that the Casino’s action was “too late, they should have stepped in earlier” is of itself an admission by him that this was so.

Conclusion

  1. [74]
    The case Mr Pritchard presented in pressing his application to have the Decision set-aside, and thus his exclusion from the casino lifted, was entirely misconceived. He was misguided in his focus on lost membership benefit, losing sight entirely of the relevant issues, namely his ability to discipline himself in terms of his gambling and the adverse effect on him it would lead to, or had led to.
  2. [75]
    I concluded that the Casino was entirely correct in taking the steps it took to intervene and put into place a protective mechanism of excluding Mr Pritchard from the casino, such being the exclusion direction. The Decision therefore was the correct and preferable one. There was no reason to disturb it. It should be and thus was confirmed. My orders reflected this.

Footnotes

[1]This information is drawn from the oral and documentary evidence as it was before this Tribunal, the relevant source of it being footnoted in terms of a witness’s oral evidence of from documents for which the relevant hearing exhibit number is given.

[2]Oral evidence of Mr Pritchard, together with that recorded in Ex 8 Anx CA-2, confirmed by Mr Pritchard under cross-examination.

[3]Ex 2 Anx SOR-45.

[4]Oral evidence of Mr Pritchard given under cross-examination.

[5]Ex 2 Anx SOR-45.

[6]Ex 2 Anx SOR-17.

[7]Ex 2 Anx SOR-46.

[8]Ex 3 – as explained by Mr Pritchard in his statement.

[9]Ex 6.

[10]Ex 2 Anx SOR-45.

[11]Ex 9 – Anx TS-5 being an e-mail from Mr Riley Wolstencroft – Gaming Supervisor for the Electronic Gaming Machines being sent at 12:07 am on 3 February 2024. I have extracted herein what I saw as being the relevant parts.

[12]Ex 2 – see the documents described events between 2 Feb and 9 Feb 2024 as included therein. See also the statement of Mr Stevens – Ex 9 para’s 15 to 19.

[13]Whilst it was filed outside of the requisite 28 day period, the Casino did not take issue with this point and was content for the application to be heard and determined.

[14]This is as it appears in the Annexure to his application.

[15]HR Act s 48(1) & (2).

[16]HR Act s 13(1). The factors for determining what is reasonable and justifiable are set out in s 13(2) of the Act.

[17]HR Act s 15 and s 25.

[18]CC Act s 3(2)(c).

[19]As previously enacted within the definition of ‘problem gambler’ under the CC Act, now found in s 99C of the Act.

[20]Ex 3 – this being the documentation annexed to Mr Pritchard’s application in commencing this proceeding; Ex 4 – being a Statutory Declaration by him given 13 September 2024 and filed 17 September 2024.

[21]Ex 5.

[22]The words stated here is not taken from a transcript and so is not to be read as being verbatim. It is as per the notes I took during the hearing. Wherever similar references are made in these reasons as attributed to individual persons the same applies.

[23]Ex 1.

[24]Ex 2.

[25]Ex 6.

[26]Ex 7.

[27]Ex 8.

[28]Ex 9.

[29]Document MFI ‘B’ para’s 9 to 19.

[30]Ibid para 23. Italics is at it appears in the original.

[31]Ibid para’s as noted.

[32]Penfold v Firkn & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11 at [37] per Judicial Member Forrest SC.

[33]QCAT Act s 19.

[34]QCAT Act s 20.

[35]QCAT Act s 24.

[36]SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 591,[26].

[37]Camilleri v Star Entertainment Group Ltd t/as The Star Gold Coast [2025] QCAT 23,[27].

[38]Vaughn v The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd [2025] QCAT 117.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Pritchard v Breakwater Island Limited t/as The Ville Resort-Casino

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 194

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Taylor

  • Date:

    19 May 2025

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
Camilleri v Star Entertainment Group Ltd t/as The Star Gold Coast [2025] QCAT 23
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QCAT 23
Cite 2 - [2025] QCAT 23
Penfold v Firkin [2023] QCATA 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCATA 11
Cite 2 - [2023] QCATA 11
SB v The Star Entertainment Group Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 591
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCAT 591
Cite 2 - [2024] QCAT 591
Vaughan v The Star Entertainment Qld Limited [2025] QCAT 117
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QCAT 117
Cite 2 - [2025] QCAT 117

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.