πŸ’° Pursuant to section 63 of the Casino Control Act , - au - New Zealand Gazette

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days πŸ”₯

Filter:
Sort:
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Authority means the Casino Control Authority established by section 7 of the Casino Control Act Board means the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
First LIVE STREAM Slot Play After REOPENING CASINOS

G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Casino Control (Burswood Island) (Licensing of Employees) Regulations Island) (Licensing of Employees) Amendment Regulations , Regulations.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
How Casinos Trick You Into Gambling More

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

(a)the Authority under section 66 of the Casino Control Act ; or All legislation and regulations designed to control the operation of casinos in New Zealand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Gambling on Addiction : How Governments Rely on Problem Gamblers - The Fifth Estate

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Overview of the role of casino and non-casino gambling licensing, regulation the Gambling Act repeals the Casino Control Act and the Gaming and​.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Ice Cube - You Know How We Do It (Official Video)

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Zealand's first Casino, Christchurch Casino, launching in after the passage of the Casino Control Act A further five establishments opened over the.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
The Business of Casinos

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Pursuant to section 63 of the Casino Control Act , the Casino Control Authority on 18 October resolved that the Rules of Casino.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
JOHN KANE EXPLAINS THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Each national park must have a management plan that controls how parks are the provisions of the Act. Casino Control Act The Casino Control Act


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
ANOTHER CASINO OPENING ~ SESSION I at SOBOBA CASINO

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

10(15A) [Consideration for gambling in casino venue] If a supply is treated as have the same meanings as defmed in section 2 of the Casino Control Act


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
1980s: How Donald Trump Created Donald Trump - NBC News

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Authority means the Casino Control Authority established by section 7 of the Casino Control Act Board means the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Understanding Your Legal Rights in Casinos with Gambler's Attorney Bob Nersesian

πŸ€‘

Software - MORE
G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Pursuant to section 63 of the Casino Control Act , the Casino Control Authority on 18 October resolved that the Rules of Casino.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Singapore's Casino Control Act under review

The Commission noted that neither party had addressed the matter in written submissions, and invited parties to comment. Counsel for the Respondent repeated the written submissions summarised above. Because the application does not particularise the precise matters said to amount to breaches, it is not clear whether the issue requires determination or whether it will ultimately be a moot point. The Applicant submitted that the period of alleged breaches traverses two different regulatory regimes, the first from 24 May until 1 July , when licence condition 12 and the RGP applied. The Applicant supported the separate hearing of the preliminary and substantive issues by way of oral public hearing. The Respondent distinguished Jessett on the basis that it dealt with the knowledge of the agent which then becomes that of the principal, but not circumstances where one agent has a relationship with one principal and then another. As noted above, alleged breaches cannot pre-date 1 April , when DCML became the licence holder, but evidence may be received relating to activities prior to that date, for the purpose of attributing relevant knowledge to DCML. The Respondent distinguished Dental Council v Bell from the current circumstances on the following grounds:. It was there recognised that pre-1 July self-exclusions were not enforceable under the Act, with the HREP stating that pre-1 July agreements would be maintained through the now legally enforceable exclusion order.

G L Reeves Acting Chairperson. The Respondent stated that there is nothing in section to require a Respondent to disclose its evidence in advance, and that such an approach would be inconsistent with other punitive jurisdictions that exist in New Zealand.

In light of the above, the Commission invites the parties to reconsider their approach to the case. The Applicant disputed this, stating that the CCA could impose the conditions which it thought fit. The Commission observes that, while these provisions indicate that suspension may be used to achieve remedial purposes, there is no explicit statement in the Act that suspension under section is to be used only for such purposes.

At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that the Respondent was alert to the point, but had chosen not to pursue the matter as its primary submission was that a later cut off date applied, namely 1 July Counsel for the Respondent stated that, if the Secretary had been wrong about the date of the licence, this could potentially vitiate the basis upon which the Secretary had been properly satisfied under section and had applied to the Commission for suspension.

This time period provides a casino licence holder ample opportunity to rectify any ongoing breaches, thus precluding a suspension if it can only be imposed for present and continuing breaches. The Respondent also questioned whether the RGP had a proper jurisdictional casino control act 1990, as the powers of the CCA, under section 38 of the Act, did not entitle it to require conditions dealing with harm minimisation.

Further, sections andread in conjunction, do not amount to a statutory direction that the Act is retrospective and so support the proposition that it is not so intended. The Commission is of the view that this issue can only be decided at or following the substantive hearing and having heard the submissions of the parties in relation to the evidence received.

At the hearing, the Applicant clarified that it is not attempting to hold DCML responsible for alleged breaches that occurred during the period in which Aspinall NZ Limited was the licence holder. Secondly, a mechanism exists to resolve the issue of the two partially overlapping documents, namely an application to the Commission to vary licence conditions.

The issue of retrospectivity is limited to the period 1 April to 1 July Section 7 is, however, subject to the enactment providing otherwise section 4 a of the Interpretation Act or the context requiring a different interpretation section 4 b and the presumption is, accordingly, rebuttable.

The Respondent stated that:. The parties were notified accordingly, and a date was set by the Chief Gambling Commissioner for the hearing of preliminary Issues in accordance with section 4 of the Act.

While acknowledging that some information, as a matter of law, will be attributed to a new employer, defining what information that may comprise in advance is difficult, and would need to be addressed by the Commission once all the evidence is before it. The Commission considers paulo casinos brasil de angola sao issue to have been resolved satisfactorily by the parties.

The Commission noted that, if the Secretary was relying on alleged breaches that took place prior to DCML operating the casino, the Commission would have to consider the basis upon which DCML could be responsible for such alleged breaches.

The Chief Gambling Commissioner recused himself from the hearing and determination of the application as the application is a matter of considerable local interest and profile in Dunedin, where casino control act 1990 Chief Gambling Commissioner also serves as Mayor.

The Chief Gambling Commissioner decided that the hearing of the application, both preliminary and casino control act 1990, would be open to the public. Usually, such an ambiguity would be resolved by reference to section 7, but, in this case, there are a number of factors which point towards a contrary interpretation:.

A discussion of the issues raised by the Respondent, and addressed in written and oral submissions by the Respondent and Applicant follows. Consideration of the matters raised might dispose of the need to continue with the hearing of the application. If not, a hearing of the preliminary issues would ensure that evidence presented at the substantive hearing was appropriately focused.

Together with the application, the Secretary filed and served affidavit evidence in support. As a consequence, the RGP was no longer a condition of the relevant licence which could be breached in terms of section of the Act.

The Commission allowed the extension on 24 Novemberand the parties were notified accordingly. In its oral submissions, counsel for the Applicant emphasised the continuity both of the suspension regimes applying under the Casino Control Authority Act and the Act and the licence under section of the Act.

For the above reasons, the Commission is of the view that suspension is available as a sanction for prior breaches of the Act or licence conditions.

There is nothing in the Act to support such a conclusion. The Commission having read the written submissions, the purpose of the hearing was to allow the parties to amplify aspects of their submissions and to address questions from Commissioners.

In its written submissions, the Respondent casino control act 1990 that section e of the Act does not have retrospective application to alleged breaches during the period prior to 1 July In support, the Respondent referred to section 7 of the Interpretation Act and the general rule that statutes, particularly of a penal or sanctioning nature, are not retrospective unless this is express.

No steps need to be taken to correct the intituling of the documents filed. If the RGP was not revoked, the Respondent stated, there would be two inconsistent thresholds subjective in the RGP and objective in relation to the HREP for the period 1 July onwards, inconsistent policies applying to problem gamblers, and no scope to enforce the RGP historically or prospectively because section 4 does not apply.

Oral submissions casino control act 1990 made by the Respondent and the Applicant, with the Respondent exercising a right of reply. The Respondent expressed no fixed view on whether the hearings should be in private or public, but raised potential concerns about the possible release of personal information about Christine Keenan and perhaps others.

The application stated that it was based on three, interlinked, alleged breaches as follows:. It was also submitted that such a requirement would be inconsistent with the right of the Respondent to this web page oral hearing conferred in terms of section 5providing the Respondent with an uncircumscribed right to call evidence.

Such were the circumstances in the Jessett case. The present case does not concern statutes at all, but rather two documents which the licence holder has created. Counsel submitted that in the Meridian case, the Privy Council held that the knowledge of senior employees could be attributed to the company. First, implied repeal is a statutory interpretation doctrine which is predicated on the sovereignty of each Parliament. The existing confusion stems from the fact that the application itself gives limited particulars of the breaches alleged, and does not specify the dates or specific time periods on or during which the breaches are said to have occurred. In the circumstances, it is preferable not to do so now, especially as it is also to consider, at the substantive hearing, the extent and applicability of prior acquired knowledge by senior employees of DCML. In its submissions, the Respondent argued that section 7 of the Interpretation Act is not a rebuttable presumption, and that section a does not come within the exceptions in section 4 of that Act. In its submissions dated 26 January received on 27 January , DCML and DCL raised six preliminary issues which, they proposed, the Commission should address and determine prior to the hearing of the substantive application. The Respondent submitted that there is nothing in the Act that expressly states that it is retrospective. Section does not expressly state it has retrospective effect, nor does the context of the enactment require a different interpretation. It is convenient to consider the second matter first. The Commission will not examine this matter as it does not consider it has jurisdiction to make declarations about the validity of licence conditions made under the Casino Control Act The Commission considers that the High Court is the proper forum to resolve that issue. A statute should only be construed as creating penal outcomes if that is made abundantly clear in the statute. Counsel submitted that there was no general rule that all knowledge would be attributed, and the Jessett and Meridian cases did not point to this. The views of the Secretary were sought in relation to this proposal on 2 February The Secretary sought an extension until 22 February to respond. The Commission is of the view that it is unlikely that Parliament intended such breaches to be dealt with only by the most serious sanction available cancellation or by taking no action at all. What is not clear to the Commission for reasons of lack of particularity also raised below is whether anything material turns on this issue. The apparently wide jurisdiction established in section 1 can only be interpreted in light of the specific provisions set out in subsections 2 c , 4 and 5 of that same section. In its written submissions, the Respondent submitted that, in the event that it is found that condition 12 has not been revoked, the Respondent had not breached condition 12 as it has an RGP. It is unlikely that Parliament intended suspension applications to be so easily thwarted. It was contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction to suspend for a breach of the RGP itself, and that section 4 does not apply to condition In response, the Applicant pointed to condition The operating procedures for the casino shall comply with the requirements of the programme, as approved by the Authority from time to time. The Applicant cited Dental Council of New Zealand v Bell [] 1 NZLR in support of the proposition that Parliament cannot have intended a lacuna resulting in an act predating the entry into force of the new legislation being immune from complaint. The following points can be taken from the text and structure of sections and If suspension cannot be used as a sanction for past breaches then it follows that the only consequence available for prior breaches is to cancel the licence or to do nothing. As a practical matter, it takes several months for a suspension application to be heard. In fact the application filed correctly cites DCML as the holder of the affected licence, and the confusion seems to have arisen from incorrect intituling on subsequent documents. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent sought to distinguish breach of the RGP from non-compliance of the casino operating procedures with the HREP, to which condition Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the CCA must have intended that the licence holder be required to comply with the RGP, and condition The Commission agrees with the Applicant and considers that condition Suspension: Remedial or Penal? On this issue, the submissions centred on two matters the second raised by the Commission. This information was said to demonstrate that the change in operator from Aspinall NZ Limited to DCML involved no change of personnel many of the personnel being longstanding employees or style of management, and showed prior knowledge by Mr Woolley and Mr McLauchlan. In its written and oral submissions, the Respondent submitted that the Commission would be acting inappropriately, and in breach of natural justice, if it required the Respondent to provide its evidence, by way of affidavit, in advance of a hearing. The Commission granted this request. The only difference, it was submitted, was the change in the body responsible for dealing with alleged breaches. All of these point to suspension being a remedial provision. The Applicant confirmed that DCML is the correct Respondent, and stated that all future documents filed would reflect this position. Implied revocation of Responsible Gaming Programme. The affidavit evidence in support of the application relates to activities that took place during , and The Commission considers that it is impossible, at this preliminary stage, before the evidence is heard, to specify what knowledge or information can be attributed to DCML. The Commission observes that this distinction does not appear on the face of the application. From the transitional provision made, counsel took it that the RGP had been impliedly revoked. The Commission considers that the Applicant should file an amended notice which gives sufficient particulars of the breaches, including the dates or specified time periods on which the acts or omissions said to constitute breaches were alleged to have occurred. While cancellation is a penal outcome, a suspension may be for penal or remedial purposes, there being no obligation in the Act for suspension only to be used for remedial purposes. The Commission acknowledges that the subsections in section identified by the Respondent could support an interpretation that suspension is for remedial purposes.