10.
to note that the argument "risks circularity", and to point out that the meaning of "revenue" must itself be "subject to the ordinary constructional exercise".[1]
34 The more complete answer given by the Court of Appeal to SkyCity's argument concerning the construction of the definition of "gross gambling revenue" in cl 1.1 of the CDA is to be found in the Court of Appeal's parsing of the language of the definition mindful of the place of the CDA within the scheme of the Casino Act. Against the background of "gambling" being defined in the Casino Act to mean "the playing of a game for monetary or other stakes" and to include "making or accepting a wager",[2] the Court of Appeal pointed out, the focus of the definition of "gross gambling revenue" can be seen to be not on the business constituted by the operation of the casino but much more precisely on amounts received as consideration for the playing of a game. An "amount received by the Licensee … for or in respect of consideration for gambling" is money or monetary value that is received by the Licensee as consideration for the Licensee's acceptance of a bet.
35 The Court of Appeal pointed out that SkyCity's approved cashless gaming system has always operated, in the language of the Casino Act, as "a system that enables the storage of monetary value for use in operating a gaming machine". Each time a customer has used SkyCity's cashless gaming system to bet on an EGM or an ATG, monetary value has been received by SkyCity as consideration for its acceptance of that bet. The monetary value received by SkyCity has been in the form of a reduction in SkyCity's indebtedness to the customer in an amount represented by the monetary value of the electronic gaming credits which the customer could then have redeemed for cash yet then chose to wager. The position has not been relevantly different between a customer who has been a Member of SkyCity's Rewards Program and who has bet converted credits and a customer who has bet credits purchased from their own funds. Given their exchangeability for cash at the time of betting, the origin of the electronic gaming credits the Member has then chosen to wager is irrelevant.[3] The only relevant transaction is the exchange of monetary value for the bet, not the exchange of points for converted credits.
