The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Noora Al Daher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn |
| Judgment Date | 15 August 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2847 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Claim no: HQ12X04205 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 15 August 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2847 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC
Sitting As A Deputy Judge Of The High Court
Claim no: HQ12X04205
In this action the Ritz casino seeks to recover £1m. on unpaid cheques.
The Parties. The Ritz casino is a high end casino in London Piccadilly. The Defendant is Mrs Noora (or to Western acquaintances "Nora") Abdullah Mahawish Al-daher. She is a Woman of great wealth, derived from family funds in Saudi Arabia from her late father; and her husband is in his own right wealthy from business interests in oman, and Worldwide through a Saudi Arabian conglomerate.
Background. Mrs Al-Daher was a member of and has gambled at the Ritz casino since 1999, and at other casino clubs in London over a number of years, in increasing sums of money. The scale of her gambling has been very high. On the evening of 3 April 2012, on one of her visits to London, she gambled and lost £2m. That evening she had signed and given individual cheques in values of £200,000 and £300,000 cheques totalling £2m., in return for which she had received and gambled with chips, but lost and exhausted all of them. The. It had been her habit in the preceding period to sign cheques to the Ritz casino in such sums. The cheques signed by her that evening were promptly presented by the Ritz casino the following day but were dishonoured. In December 2012 she caused £1m. to be paid to the Ritz casino but that left a balance of £1m. outstanding on the face of the cheques dishonoured. It is that £1m. which the Ritz casino seeks to recover.
The evidence shows, and it is common ground, that over all this time in order to gamble at the Ritz casino Mrs Al-Daher had signed and given cheques, and if she lost the cheques were always presented promptly by the Ritz casino and paid promptly on presentation. There was a sole exception on one occasion in 2006, when payment was not made on the cheques, the Ritz casino immediately withdrew the cheque cashing facility ("CCF") to which I shall shortly refer, but the sums outstanding on her unsuccessful betting were in fact discharged within 2 days of the betting, whereupon the Ritz casino reinstated her CCF.
The present legislation governing gaming in this country is the Gaming Act 2005. Under that legislation in order to have a gaming licence the casino is subject to certain requirements and there are Codes of Practice pursuant to the Act which lay down principles of social responsibility, gaming at a licensed casino is not as such illegal, but the provision of "credit" for gaming by the casino is prohibited. I refer to the statutory provisions below.
The principal issues in the present case are: (i) was the system or arrangement between the Ritz casino and Mrs Al-Daher one by which the Ritz casino granted credit, and if so is recovery of the sums claimed required to be barred for illegality? (ii) was the Ritz casino under a duty of care towards her, on the basis that they knew or should have known that she was a gambling addict or problem gambler, either prior to that evening or by reason of what happened on that evening, and if so were they in breach of that duty?
Particularly in the case of high value players, the Ritz casino, like other London casinos, may accord the player a cheque cashing facility, "CCF". This permits a player to pay by cheque, as opposed to cash, bank transfer or debit card. Provided a member has a CCF with the Ritz casino, the casino will accept cheques from that member up to the limit of the facility, in exchange for chips enabling the member to play. Mr Marris, Chief Executive of the Ritz casino, deposes that the cheques accepted cannot be post-dated and must be for full value. A "traffic card" is kept for each member who buys chips using a gaming cheque or debt card, ie for any non-cash transaction, recording information such as the number, amount, date and fate of a cheque. The history of gaming and payment of gaming debts by the member is considered by the casino, in order to set the individual limit for the CCF in respect of that member.
Over time the CCF limit for Mrs Al-Daher at the Ritz casino had been raised, and since 28 May 2011 had been £1.7m. She was a member of and played at other London casinos. It is clear that when raising her limit to £1.7m the Ritz casino took references from other casinos, which showed that at that time she had CCFs respectively of £1.7m (Aspinalls), £1.7m (Les Ambassadeurs), and £1.5m ( Crockfords) (Bundle B/8/336).
It is convenient to note here that the dishonoured cheques of 3 April 2012 were scrip cheques, namely cheques bearing the member's banking details, which on request by the member will be sourced by a member of staff from the cashier's desk and presented to the member for signature. Scrip cheques are utilised by gaming institutions worldwide and enable members to play when not in possession of their own cheque book.
Credit. The Gambling Act 2005 provides that
"Section 81 (2)(a) A non-remote casino operating licence or a non-remote bingo operating licence shall by virtue of this subsection be subject to the condition that the licensee may not —
(a) give credit in connection with gambling.
Section 81 (4)
In this section, "credit" includes
(a) any form of financial accommodation, and
(b) in particular, the acceptance by way of payment of a fee, charge or stake other than
(ii) a cheque which is not post-dated and for which full value is given"
The Act therefore permits gambling to be carried out lawfully so long as the player has given "a cheque which is not post-dated and for which full value is given".
It is common ground that in the case of Mrs Al-Daher, with the tiny blip in 2006 when nonetheless the cheques were paid within 2 days, her cheques were without exception up to 3 April 2012 both presented the next day and immediately honoured when she had made losses.
If the result of an evening's play was that the player lost, the cheques signed would be presented the next day by the casino for payment. If at the end of the session the player had won, the cheques signed by her would be torn up or would not be presented.
It is contended by Mr Deacon counsel for Mrs Al-Daher that thereby the casino extended "credit" to her.
Mr Deacon contends that (i) this shows that the cheque is taken as a conditional cheque only, and/or as security for later payment of any losses under gaming which takes place immediately; and/or (ii) there is thereby an "accommodation" to her, in that it was intended that the cheque be cashed only if she lost; and/or (iii) the cheque was not "for full value" in that they acted merely as security pending settlement at the end of play when the obligation to pay for the chips might not arise.
He further sought support in two authorities.
In Aspinall's Club Limited v Fouad al-Zayat [2008] EWHC 2101 (Comm) Teare J said at paragraph 42, (in relation to section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968),
"The ordinary and natural meaning of credit in the context of section 16 of the Act is "time to pay", in the sense of deferring or postponing the punter's obligation to pay for the chips he is about to use.. or has used .. Credit may be provided or allowed unilaterally in the sense that the bank will defer or postpone the obligation to pay..".
In R v Knightsbridge London Crown Court ex p. Marcrest Properties Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 300 at 308G,
" The course of dealing between Marcrest and their customers over a long period and involving numerous cheques, demonstrated that it was the intention of the parties that there was to be no legal right to have a cheque honoured when presented. The only lawful cheque contemplated by s16 (2) and (3) of the Act of 1968 is one in which there is a common expectation of payment on presentation within two days. What was provided was a sham; it was not better than, if as good as, a post-dated cheque. As the Lord Justice rightly commented, its function was merely to record a loan of money or tokens to that value" (emphasis in bold supplied by Mr Deacon, emphasis in italics supplied by the court).
In my judgment the 2005 Act as a matter of purpose and policy balances two interests. In contrast to historical legislation, it expressly recognises gaming as a proper and lawful activity, where it is for the individual to choose to engage in or refrain from participating in it. (See section 335 of the Act, which provides that "The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement"). Equally its prohibition of credit is intended to ensure that an individual should not be permitted to gamble unless he has the means immediately to pay for the wager if he loses; since otherwise he may, or may be encouraged to, wager what he cannot afford to pay; hence the provision that "credit" does not include the giving of a cheque which is not post dated and is for full value.
The authorities cited by Mr Deacon seem to me to be far removed from the present case. In Aspinall's, the court found that the Defendant requested the Claimant to allow him one year to pay off his debt out of his winnings at the club and a Mr Osborne on behalf of the Claimant assented to that request (para 25). It was an obvious case of accommodation and the court was resolving whether the accommodation must at least be communicated to the punter, and whether it had been. In Knightsbridge, the case proceeded on the basis that the casino repeatedly accepted cheques from persons whose previous cheques had been dishonoured in circumstances in which the casino knew that those cheques would not be honoured on first presentation, so the giving of cheques was a sham (at page 308F-G).
I accept that if it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial