European Gaming Lawyer magazine Spring 2016 | Page 26

lost £6.47 million. The Judge was obviously
stunned by the amounts of money she had
access to and frequently referred to her
wealth. There is a lovely comment from Mrs.
Al Daher in cross-examination, which is
repeated in the judgment, that in ten days in
2012 she had received a total of £6 million,
“because I needed the money to pay for the
kids, you know.”!
The Gambling Act requires there to be a
condition on all non-remote casino licences
that the casino does not give credit in
connection with gambling; this includes any
form of financial accommodation, but not
cheques which are not post-dated, and for
which full value is given (section 81(2)(a)
and 81(4)). Mrs. Al Daher argued that the
Ritz’s normal practice of tearing up or not
presenting cheques at the end of a gambling
session if the gambler had won more than
he had lost, and presenting other cheques,
where the gambler overall had lost, on the
following business day, meant that credit
was being given. The Judge dismissed that
argument.
She then tried to argue that she was a
gambling addict, and that the Ritz staff
must have realised that on the relevant
night because of her behaviour, and so, she
said, the Ritz owed her a duty of care, and
had breached it. On the facts, the Judge
was not having any of that either. On the
night, she did not express or convey unease,
distress or a wish to stop gambling. Further,
she could not produce any worthwhile
medical evidence to support her contention
that she was a problem gambler, let alone
a pathological one. Clearly, the Judge
preferred the evidence of the Ritz staff
to that of Mrs. Al Daher. Further, apart
from a brief blip some years before, her
cheques had always been met, and she had
equivalent size cheque cashing facilities
with other London casinos, which were also
always met (the Ritz had checked up).
The case is interesting for several things.
The dictum from Calvert (above) was
quoted with approval and the Judge agreed
with Calvert that there was no general duty
care owed by the Ritz to Mrs. Al Daher,
(paras. 120, and 124-126) even when the
licensee had to comply with the Gambling
Commission’s Codes of Practice under
Section 24 of the Gambling Act (which by
then was in force), and where the Ritz’s

26 | European Gaming Lawyer | Spring Issue | 2016

own codes recognised that “while the
responsibility for an individual’s gambling
is his or her own, there is an obligation
on casino operators to act in a socially
responsible way and exercise a duty of care
towards customers and staff ”.
The case is also noticeable, because
after the Gambling Act came into force, it
supports the further dictum of the Judge
in the Judge in Calvert that the law should
be very slow to recognise a sufficient
proximity to justify a requirement to take
protective steps to restrain a gambler from
exercising his liberty to gamble on his

for the rest of world. During the case he
gave evidence. In court, he came over as an
“intemperate witness”; he became “irritated”
or “heated” at times, refusing sometimes
to answer questions and occasionally he
lost his temper for no reason, shouting
and gesticulating. If this were a show
on television, everyone would say it was
unrealistic and over the top.
He clearly fell out with staff, and if he
felt that they had been rude to him, not
only at the Ritz but at at least one other
London casino, his reaction was to demand
to self-exclude, and then try to get the self-

“while the responsibility for an individual’s
gambling is his or her own, there is an
obligation on casino operators to act in a
socially responsible way and exercise a duty
of care towards customers and staff”.
own responsibility (see para. 115). Going
on from there, the Judge stated that the
Gambling Act expressly recognises gaming
as a lawful and proper activity, where it is
for the individual to choose to engage in or
refrain from participating in it. Finally, he
found that the Act was a liberalising one,
illustrated by Section 335, which makes
gambling debts enforceable.
Mrs. Al Daher lost all round.
One of her associates was a Mr. Al
Gaebury, who was the Defendant in another
case taken by the Ritz shortly afterwards
(The Ritz Hotel Casino v. Gaebury [2015]
EWHC 2294). Mr. Al Gaebury also
managed to lose £2,000,000 in one night at
the Ritz, and his cheque for that amount was
also dishonoured, and the Ritz sued him on
it. Again, the issue of a duty of care an