Hinkley v Star City Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWCA 299

Hinkley v Star City Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWCA 299

Star City Pty Ltd as casino operator and occupier was entitled to exclude Hinkley from casino premises by exercise of proprietary rights without affording natural justice or procedural fairness; the Casino Control Act 1992 and its scheme, particularly s 77, does not impose an obligation to afford natural justice in the exercise of proprietary rights of exclusion. Even assuming procedural fairness applies under s 79 exclusion orders, it does not attach to non-statutory refusals. The appeal against refusal of entry without procedural fairness fails.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Supreme Court Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'exclusion From Premises' 'casino Regulation' 'procedural Fairness' 'monopoly and Public Interest' 'licenses for Entry']
['administrative Law' 'property Law'] ['natural Justice' 'exclusion From Premises' 'casino Regulation' 'procedural Fairness' 'monopoly and Public Interest' 'licenses for Entry']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Supreme Court Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Star City Pty Ltd was obliged to afford natural justice before excluding Hinkley from the casino premises' 'Whether exclusion by a casino operator exercising proprietary rights requires procedural fairness' 'Whether exercise of statutory power under s 79 of Casino Control Act 1992 requires observance of natural justice']

Ratio Decidendi

Star City Pty Ltd as casino operator and occupier was entitled to exclude Hinkley from casino premises by exercise of proprietary rights without affording natural justice or procedural fairness; the Casino Control Act 1992 and its scheme, particularly s 77, does not impose an obligation to afford natural justice in the exercise of proprietary rights of exclusion. Even assuming procedural fairness applies under s 79 exclusion orders, it does not attach to non-statutory refusals. The appeal against refusal of entry without procedural fairness fails.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed with costs.']