Ben Bigbucks (“Ben) was a “High Roller” Gambler - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

TASK:

• The word limit for this assessment is 3,000 words (plus 10% leeway), including all references and headings, legislative provisions, case law quotations, etc. Markers will stop reading once the response reaches 3,000 + 300 words. There is no minimum word count.
• The questions in this assessment are both scenario-based and policy-based questions. You may discuss policy issues related to these topics as you see fit, if appropriate to the questions on the facts.
• You should write your response to this assessment in full paragraphs. For scenario-based questions, respond following Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion unless otherwise directed. For policy-based questions, adopt an essay-style response. Expression, spelling, punctuation and grammar will be taken into account in the assessment of your answers to this assessment.
• Where your answer depends upon a fact that is not stated, deal with all possible relevant factors. If you feel that insufficient information has been provided in any question, please indicate what further information you require and why.
• you are expected to use full citations and comply with AGLC style for referencing.
• ---------
• QUESTION ONE(20 marks)
• Key Facts
• Ben Bigbucks (“Ben) was a “high roller” gambler, who frequented casinos around the world and had made large sums of money over the years having perfected the skill of winning at the card game of Bridge.
• One of the establishments where Ben particularly liked to gamble was Tiara Casino in Melbourne. In 2017, Ben had qualified for “Platinum High Roller” status at Tiara Casino. As a result, he became entitled to significant benefits including access to the VIP area at the casino (where Ben and his friends could mingle with A-list celebrities) and use of Tiara’s private fleet of Tesla electric vehicles for travel to and from gambling events. The Platinum High Roller Program was introduced by Tiara Casino to attract high-wealth gamblers from around Australia, on the basis that these gamblers can afford to lose (and on occasions, lose heavily) resulting in increased profits for the casino.
• However, from around mid-2019, Ben’s luck had started to run out and he began to incur significant losses in his gambling. His access to funds began to dry up and he also fell ill. His deteriorating health also meant he couldn’t travel overseas – so he ceased gambling at casinos other than Tiara in Melbourne, his hometown. On several occasions Ben mentioned to staff at Tiara that he was facing real financial difficulties. This included the possibility of having to sell all 4 of his holiday houses, his Bridge club and coaching business. On the night of a particularly bad loss at Tiara, he mentioned to the Dealer that he had approached various lenders to obtain money so he could continue gambling. Nevertheless, at no stage did any Tiara staff report this to management, which would have triggered ‘responsible gambling’ procedures that would enable Ben to exclude himself from the casino.
• In October 2019, things came to a crashing end for Ben when he made a massive loss during the Ultimate 100 Bridge Competition held at the casino. This took his total losses incurred at Tiara over the previous few months to $4.1 million, and he finally had no available funds to use for gambling. The lending institutions he had borrowed from took steps to repossess Ben’s last house and other assets, and his long term partner left him. A broken man, Ben then filed for bankruptcy.
• Additional Information:
• Through his trustee in bankruptcy, Ben has filed a claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria against The House Always Wins Enterprises Ltd (“THAWE”), the operator of Tiara Casino.
• He is seeking damages from THAWE for economic loss suffered as a result of his gambling at Tiara, including recovery of his gambling losses and compensation for the loss of his assets and the failure of his business.
• REQUIRED:
• Write a draft judgment in relation to Ben’s claim for damages.
• Assume that:
• you are a single judge sitting in the Supreme Court of Victoria;
• the only relevant precedents are the three cases summarised below.
• Your answer should:
• determine the precedential value of each of the previous decisions (i.e. whether the decision is binding, persuasive, not binding, distinguishable); and
• on the basis of these previous decisions, set out whether you find that THAWE owed a duty of care to Ben to prevent him from suffering economic loss; and (if so) whether that duty has been breached in this case.
• not apply any other case law or learning that you may have acquired from studying the Law of Torts.
• Chancey v Ladybrokes Betting Agencies Ltd
• Supreme Court – New South Wales (2019)
• Summary of Facts
• Louisa Chancey was a stockbroker who also liked to gamble on any form of sport. The explosion of the live sports betting phenomenon led Louisa to increase her gambling activities, to the point where she had several phone and internet betting accounts. However, most of her betting transactions were placed with one company in particular: Ladybrokes Betting Agencies Ltd (“LBA”).
• Over a period of several years, Louisa developed a serious gambling problem and began to lose significant sums of money. This occurred partly because she was unable to separate her betting from her tribal loyalties to the Melbourne Football Club in the AFL, and Tottenham Hotspur in the English Premier League (with both teams suffering long losing streaks in 2018).
• In early 2019, Louisa was diagnosed as a pathological gambler, a recognised psychiatric condition. She was advised to cease working as a stockbroker until she recovered, and to commence counselling. She took this advice, but struggled to overcome her problem with gambling and continued betting with LBA (and losing money).
• In its TV and radio advertisements, LBA included messages such as “enjoy the bet – but bet responsibly” and “call our gambling help line if gambling is getting the better of you”. LBA’s website also included information about support services for problem gamblers.
• Louisa sued LBA in the Magistrate’s Court for economic loss on the basis that the company had breached its duty of care towards her, by failing to have systems in place to prevent her from continuing to gamble in circumstances where she had a gambling addiction.
• Louisa’s claim was unsuccessful; she appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Judgment of Lewis, Cole and Russo JJ
• The starting point here is the well-settled principle of the law of negligence that a person or organisation in the position of LBA owes a duty of care to its clients, such as the appellant, to safeguard them against risks that are reasonably foreseeable.
• However, does this duty extend so far as to require LBA to safeguard against its patrons suffering economic loss? It cannot, for this simple reason: gambling is an inherently risky activity, and that risk is taken on by the gambler in the full knowledge that monetary losses are not only possible, but probable.
• In any event, the appellant’s case must fail because whatever duty LBA owed her was discharged by the measures it took to alert its clients to the issue of problem gambling and how they could seek support if needed. The appellant is simply seeking to shift responsibility onto LBA for her problem gambling and its consequences. As an empowered, professional woman with a strong education, there is no legal basis for her to do so.
• The appeal is dismissed.
• Freo Casino Holdings Ltd v Poker-face
• High Court of Australia (2011)
• Summary of Facts
• Alex Poker-face worked as an electrician on construction sites, but fancied himself as a “player” in the Perth gambling scene. He was a particularly good at blackjack and became a regular at Freo Casino in Fremantle where he enjoyed some success over a period of months.
• This attracted the attention of Freo Casino’s marketing team, leading to Alex being offered a range of benefits to continue gambling there including free liquor, meals and cigars. Alex eagerly accepted these offers, taking his friends to Freo Casino for a “big night out” on many occasions.
• While living the high life, Alex began using recreational drugs. As a result his judgment at the blackjack table was often impaired and he began to lose more often than win on his visits to Freo Casino. Despite this, he was never refused the opportunity to gamble or to use the casino’s cheque cashing facility so that he could continue gambling despite having lost significant sums of money.
• Having realised that he had developed a gambling problem, Alex sought counselling and managed to overcome it. However, he had suffered significant financial losses along the way including money lost while gambling at Freo Casino and losses arising from the impact of his situation on his ability to work.
• Alex sued Freo Casino Holdings Ltd (“FCH”), the operator of the casino, for damages in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. He did not succeed in his claim, but was successful on appeal to the WA Court of Appeal. FCH then appealed to the High Court.
• Judgment of Nettlefold CJ, Leung, Greig, Bartol and Holbrook JJ
• It is lamentable that the courts have seen cases like the present one increasingly often in recent years. Gambling in society seems to have reached epic proportions, and is all too readily available – particularly to those least able to afford to participate in it. Inevitably, those who have suffered financial losses as a result of gambling have sought to find someone to blame. The task for this court is to determine where legal responsibility lies in such cases.
• In our view, as a statement of general principle, a casino or other operator of a gambling enterprise does not have a duty to protect its patrons or customers against the economic loss they may suffer as a result of gambling. But to that general principle must be added this qualifier: the casino/operator may have such a duty, where it has actual knowledge that an individual is under a special that directly affects that person’s ability to make responsible decisions about whether to gamble.
• In the instant case, we find that while Freo Casino was monitoring the respondent’s gambling habits closely enough for us to find that they had actual knowledge about problematic gambling, it did not have knowledge of the surrounding circumstances that up the individual under a special circumstances to affect the respondent’s ability to make responsible decisions about whether to gamble. It would be unreasonable to put a responsibility on staff to determine whether each patron at the Casino has the requisite mental capacity when engaging in table or other cames.
• We find in favour of the applicant and allow the appeal.
• Catastrope v Frankston Miners’ Club Pty Ltd
• Court of Appeal - Vic (2004)
• Summary of Facts
• Dimitri Catastrope was a retired coalminer who liked to play the “pokies” (poker machines) at his local club, the Frankston Miners’ Club. Over many years he enjoyed mixed success, generally losing small amounts of money but occasionally enjoying a big win to make up for his losses.
• After his wife’s death in 2012, Dimitri began to spend more time at the club and increased his gambling activity. As a result he experienced bigger losses and drew on his retirement income to continue to play the pokies. Inevitably, he frittered away most of his available funds and was then reliant on the age pension for his livelihood.
• Dimitri stopped playing the pokies in late 2013, but sued Frankston Miners’ Club Pty Ltd for his gambling losses in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found for the Frankston Miner’s Club. Dimitiri appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
• Decision of O’Farrell J
• The law here is quite clear: save in an extraordinary case, economic loss occasioned by gambling is not accepted to be a form of loss for which the law permits recovery – and those who run gambling operations have no duty to save gamblers from themselves.
• What might constitute an extraordinary case? There can be no clearer example than the present case. Here, an elderly man from a migrant background, who has worked hard all of his life, has fallen prey to those conducting an activity which they knew would be to his detriment. The defendant operated its club in a small, tight-knit community. Its staff knew the plaintiff and his circumstances well. They must have been aware of his particular vulnerability following the death of his wife, and that the loneliness he then encountered would explain his increased attendance at the club and therefore his involvement in higher levels of gambling.
• In those circumstances the respondent owed a duty to the applicant to safeguard him against the risk of economic loss; and by its conduct, the respondent breached that duty.
• For these reasons, we find the decision of the lower court unsatisfactory and find for the applicant.
• QUESTION TWO (15 marks)
• The rule of law is a fundamental principle – arguably, a cornerstone – of the Australian legal system.
• REQUIRED
• What do you understand the concept of the rule of law to mean? In your answer, provide some contemporary examples where application of the rule of law has been upheld.
• QUESTION THREE(15 marks)
• REQUIRED
• How does the Australian Constitution delineate the law-making powers of the Federal and State Parliaments? In your answer, address whether this division of power encourages effective law making?
• <<END OF ASSESSMENT>>
• Marking Guide Question 1:
• Marks available Marking Criteria
• 20% Correct summary of the material facts and precise articulation of legal issues for determination
• 20% Correct identification of precedential value of each of the decisions
• 40% Correct application of the previous decisions to the case at hand
• 20% Make the argument in a well presented and referenced form, include a correct final outcome
• Marking Guide Question 2/3:
• Marks available Marking Criteria
• 40% Identify the legal, practical, social and/or political issues raised by the question
• 40% Construct a persuasive argument and critically engage in reflective discourse on the question
• 20% Make the argument in a well presented and referenced form

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.