By Mubin Shah

“The worst that can happen to a man who gambles is to win.”

Charles H. Spurgeon

We are all familiar with the exclusion orders provided for in the Casino Control Act. One can approach the National Council on Problem Gaming to get himself excluded or a family member can apply for an exclusion order against another member who is a gambling addict.  Certain people, such as undischarged bankrupts, are prohibited by statute from entering the casino’s premises. To a lesser degree, casino operators can turn away patrons who do not comply with the dress codes for entry into the casino.

However, can a casino operator ban a person for winning too much? In Britain last year, a casino chain banned a gambler who won £28 000 in 2 months on the roulette wheel. The gambler, who claims to have perfected a secret betting pattern for roulette, wrote in to the casino operator requesting a reason for his ban. In reply, he received a frosty letter stating that the casino was “under no legal obligation to give reasons for excluding someone from our premises.”

A look at the Casino Control Act reveals that a strict reading of s. 115 suggests that casinos in Singapore might similarly have no legal obligation to give reasons for excluding someone from its premises. S. 115 states “[that] a person enters and remains on any casino premises only by the license of the casino operator.” As the owner of the premises, the casino operator has a presumptive right to exclude any person from his property. However, this traditional absolutist view of proprietary interests has eroded to some extent and there have been exceptions carved out to fetter the property owner’s absolute and arbitrary right to exclude others from his premises.

One such exception is when a business is invested with “the monopoly of a public privilege”. Under the common law, such businesses must make its facilities available to all and cannot exclude members of the public without good reason. This exception has its roots in the UK and was established as early as the 18^th century. In the seminal case of Allnutt v Inglis (1810) 104 E.R. 206 (K.B.), the court held that if a person takes the benefit of a monopoly conferred to him by an act of parliament, he has an equivalent duty to exercise his proprietary rights reasonably.

This exception was discussed in Sky City Auckland Ltd v Wu [2002] 3 N.Z.L.R. 621 (C.A.), which involved a casino operator and an unusually successful gambler. Wu was banned from Sky City’s premises and he sought an injunction against his ban.

Wu argued that Sky City was the only casino operator in New Zealand and had a monopoly in the gaming business. The exception should apply and he could not be banned from the casino’s premises without good reason. Winning too much clearly was not a good reason. The High Court agreed and granted him an injunction but when Sky City appealed, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision.

The Court of Appeal held that the exception applied in New Zealand unless legislation expressly provides otherwise. It held that s. 67(1) of the New Zealand Casino Control Act allows Sky City to exclude any person from its premises arbitrarily.

Would the same apply to the local casinos?

The first question is obviously whether the common law exception “monopoly of a public privilege” exists in Singapore. And if it exists, can the two casinos be considered a monopoly? The presence of two casinos is in itself inconsistent with the notion of a monopoly but an argument can be made that the gaming industry in Singapore is so restricted that effectively, casino operators who have been granted operating licenses enjoy exclusive control of the industry.

The next question then is to ask if there is a provision in the Casino Control Act similar to s. 67(1) of the Casino Control Act (NZ) which expressly abolishes the common law exception in the context of gaming. S. 67(1) of the Casino Control Act (NZ) states:

“The fact that a casino is licensed under this Act shall not entitle any person to enter or to remain on the casino premises as against the holder of the casino premises licence or the casino operator’s licence; and, subject to any right conferred by or under any other Act, every person shall leave the casino premises when required to do so by or on behalf of the holder of the licence.”

S. 115 of the Casino Control Act replicates the first portion of s. 67(1) – a person can only enter and remain on the casino premises by the license of the casino operator. However, the second portion, “every person shall leave the casino premises when required to do so by or on behalf of the holder of the licence” is notably missing. In Sky City Auckland Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that it was these words that negated the common law exception.

In short, a strong argument can be made that the casinos in Singapore do not have an unfettered right to arbitrarily exclude anyone without good reason but at the end of the day, it is improbable that anyone might win so much that the casino operators would even consider a ban on that person.