The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited v Al Daher

A casino does not grant unlawful credit merely because it accepts a cheque during gaming and presents it after the session. The material question is whether the cheque is a sham or whether payment is genuinely expected on presentation, and whether it is given for full value. Gaming chips may be treated as a mechanism for depositing funds against a liability which arises when the session ends.

A social-responsibility policy and gambling codes do not, without more, impose a duty requiring a casino to restrain a wealthy and experienced gambler who shows no signs of loss of control. Any duty must satisfy proximity, foreseeability, and fairness. Enforcement of an otherwise illegal gaming transaction may also depend on whether refusal would further the statutory policy against credit.

The claimant casino sued to recover £1 million remaining unpaid under dishonoured cheques signed by the defendant after gambling losses. The defendant contended that the casino’s cheque-cashing facility amounted to unlawful credit under the Gambling Act 2005, making the claim unenforceable.

She also alleged that the casino owed her a duty of care because it knew or should have known that she was a problem gambler, and that it negligently allowed her to continue gambling and increased her facility. She counterclaimed for recovery of £1 million already paid, alleging mistake. The issues were whether the cheque arrangements involved unlawful credit, whether a duty of care existed and was breached, and whether the payment could be recovered.

1. Credit and enforceability. The claim succeeded. Under section 81 of the Gambling Act 2005, credit does not include a non-post-dated cheque given for full value. The defendant’s cheques were not a sham: payment was expected on presentation, and her established practice was that cheques were promptly presented and honoured. The casino’s destruction of cheques when she won did not convert the arrangement into credit. The authorities relied on by the defendant concerned either an express accommodation or cheques known to be dishonoured and were materially different.
2. The proper analysis was that the cheque was given against a concurrent liability and suspended payment until presentation. The gambling debt was ascertained at the end of the session. The chip transaction was, in substance, a deposit of funds which the casino could draw upon if a debt arose. If unlawful credit had been established, enforcement would still have been considered by reference to the statutory policy and proportionality. Applying ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012], enforcement would not have been refused on these facts.
3. Duty of care. The casino’s policies and the statutory codes were relevant evidence, but did not themselves establish a duty to restrain the defendant. The court respectfully agreed with the approach in Calvert v William Hill Credit Limited [EWHC 454] (Ch). A general duty to protect all problem gamblers would improperly interfere with the autonomy of persons who choose to gamble. The defendant had not proved addiction or that the casino knew or ought to have known that she was out of control. The evidence showed that she was calm, wished to continue, and displayed no relevant signs of distress or loss of control. It was not fair, just and reasonable to impose the alleged duty, and the negligence claim failed.
4. Counterclaim and causation. The counterclaim for repayment failed because there was no evidence that the defendant would have withheld payment absent the alleged mistake. The court also observed, obiter, that a causation defence might arise if a gambler would have gambled elsewhere and lost the same sum, although that issue did not require decision.
5. There was judgment for the claimant for £1 million, together with interest. The parties were invited to agree and file an order.

First-instance decision. No earlier decision in the same proceedings was stated in the judgment.