The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Geabury

A self-exclusion agreement is not necessarily irrevocable. The relevant gambling codes did not prohibit agreed revocation, and a casino may agree to revoke an exclusion where there are reasonable grounds and the decision is reasonable in all the circumstances. A breach of the social responsibility code provision requires consideration of whether the exclusion remains in force. No broad common law duty requires a casino or bookmaker to restrain an individual from gambling, since the gambler’s autonomy remains important. A narrower duty was left open. The claim on the dishonoured cheque succeeded because the casino had not breached its licence conditions and the defendant established no alternative defence or counterclaim.

The claimant casino sought payment of a dishonoured £2 million cheque given by the defendant in exchange for roulette chips. The defendant alleged that the gambling facilities had been provided unlawfully after the revocation of a lifetime voluntary self-exclusion agreement. He also advanced claims based on breach of contract, negligence, breach of statutory duty, undue influence, misrepresentation, unconscionability, late bets and an alleged discount.

The court found that the defendant had no gambling disorder at the material times. It further found that the 2009 self-exclusion agreement had been lawfully revoked in October 2010 after repeated requests, relevant confirmations and consultation with the Gambling Commission. The central issues were whether revocation breached the gambling licence conditions and whether the defendant had any enforceable counterclaim.

1. Illegality. The relevant Social Responsibility Code provision required the casino to operate self-exclusion procedures and take reasonable steps to prevent gambling while an exclusion agreement remained in force. The Ordinary Code provision concerning minimum periods and cooling-off procedures did not have the status of a licence condition.

2. The codes were silent on revocation. There was no necessary implication that a voluntary self-exclusion agreement was irrevocable. Revocation was a bilateral process requiring a request and a reasoned decision. An agreed revocation on reasonable grounds was permissible, having regard to the non-absolute obligations to take reasonable steps.

3. The claimant had reasonable grounds for revoking the agreement. The defendant repeatedly requested readmission, confirmed orally and in writing that he had no gambling problem, had behaved as a controlled gambler, and had been readmitted after the expiry of six months and consultation with the Gambling Commission. The claimant therefore committed no breach of its licence conditions. The illegality defence failed.

4. The defendant’s allegations of undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation and an agreement to defer presentation of the cheque had no factual foundation. The breach of contract counterclaim also failed. The self-exclusion arrangement was not a contract, in any event lacked consideration, and had been lawfully revoked.

5. The court adopted the reasoning in Calvert v William Hill Credit Limited, including the rejection of a broad common law duty requiring a gambling operator to protect a gambler from his own gambling. The individual’s autonomy was paramount. The court left open whether a narrower duty could arise where gambling was wholly outside the gambler’s control, but found that the evidence did not approach that threshold here. Any responsibility arising while the exclusion was in force had also been discharged by compliance with the relevant code provisions.

6. The claims concerning late bets and a ten per cent discount failed for want of evidence. Judgment was entered for the claimant on the dishonoured cheque, with interest as claimed. The defendant’s claims were dismissed.