Casino ordered to hear explanation by client it had banned

The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that Dragonara Casino Ltd had abused of its discretionary powers when it banned a client from entering the casino without giving him the opportunity to be heard.

Armando Tramontano said that in August 2000 he had been banned from entering the casino. He felt that this action by the casino was arbitrary, for he had never been given the reason why he had been banned, nor had he been given the opportunity to state his case.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had found in favour of Mr Tramontano and had ordered the casino to admit him. But the casino appealed to the Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

The company claimed that the principle of hearing the other party's position did not apply to private companies. In any event, the company said Mr Tramontano had been given the opportunity to give an explanation.

The court heard that Mr Tramontano was a regular client at the Dragonara Casino. In August 2000 at about 4.30 a.m., he had followed one of the casino's female croupiers from the casino at St Julians to her home in Fgura. Although the croupier had tried to evade Mr Tramontano, he had followed her until her father had intervened.

The croupier had lodged a report about this incident to the company and also with the police.

The company had provisionally suspended Mr Tramontano from the casino.

After two days, Mr Tramontano had once again gone to the casino and met with the manager to discuss the incident. Subsequently, the casino decided to bar Mr Tramontano indefinitely.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the principle of hearing the other party was applicable to a private entity also. This was an important rule of natural justice, for it meant that nobody could be penalised by a decision of a court or tribunal unless he was given prior notice of the charge and a fair opportunity to answer the case against him and to put his own case forward.

The duty to give a fair hearing was imposed upon every person who decides anything, the court said, quoting from foreign and local case law.

The court added that it did not believe that it ought to disturb the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in this case. It was true that the casino was empowered to ban individuals from entering its premises, but before exercising its powers, it had first to give the opportunity to such individual to defend his position.

The Court of Appeal upheld the company's appeal in part as it confirmed that the court could not substitute its own discretion for that of the casino. It ruled the casino's decision in banning Mr Tramontano from entering its premises null and void for it had been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice.

However, the court was not entitled to order the casino to again admit Mr Tramontano. The Court of Appeal, therefore, declared that the casino was to again examine Mr Tramontano's case and to use its discretion about re-admitting him, after, however, giving Mr Tramontano a suitable opportunity to explain his case and defend himself.