David Joe v THE STAR PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 360

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding for Recovery of Debt, Alternatively Damages for Breach of Contract of Wager, Alternatively Damages in Conversion / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the wagering contract was between the plaintiff and the defendant or between Mr Lie and the defendant' 'Whether the Jackpot and other Winnings were won by the plaintiff or by Mr Lie' 'Whether Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW) s 86A applied because Mr Lie, who physically operated the gaming machine, was subject to an Exclusion Order' 'Whether the defendant breached the contract of wager or committed conversion by refusing to pay the plaintiff and paying the Winnings to the Responsible Gambling Fund']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved that the money and economic stake wagered during the gaming-machine play were his, that Mr Lie physically operated the machines for him because of the plaintiff's disability, and that the plaintiff, not Mr Lie, was the person making the wager. On the proper construction of the Gaming Machine Rules and Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW) s 86A, "wager" referred to the economic stake risked on the uncertain event, not merely the physical act of pressing buttons. Because the plaintiff was neither a minor nor subject to an Exclusion Order, s 86A did not forfeit the Winnings. The defendant's refusal to pay the Winnings and payment of them to the Responsible Gambling Fund...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $319,733.55 inclusive of interest to date; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

• ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $319,733.55 inclusive of interest to date.' "Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]