11.
36 This reasoning is both sound and dispositive. Put in the language used in argument on the appeal, the entitlement of a Member of SkyCity's Rewards Program who has converted points into electronic gaming credits to "turn left" and redeem those converted credits for cash has given those converted credits monetary value. When the Member has chosen instead to "turn right" and use the converted credits to bet on an EGM or an ATG, SkyCity has received an amount, being the monetary value of those converted credits, for or in respect of consideration for gambling.
37 SkyCity argues that this reasoning is contradicted by reasoning of the plurality in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom's decision in London Clubs Management Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.[1] To the contrary, it is entirely consistent with that reasoning. The analogous issue in London Clubs was whether certain "non-negotiable chips" and "free bet vouchers" – referred to collectively as "Non-Negs" – given by London Clubs to selected customers for use in its casinos were required to be brought to account in assessing, for revenue purposes, "the value, in money or money's worth, of the stakes staked with [it] in … gaming".[2] The resolution of that issue was that they were not required to be brought to account on the basis that, unlike "cash chips", they did not have a "real world value" from the perspective of London Clubs in that they did not "represent money to which the gambler [was] entitled" and could not be "encashed or exchanged for goods or services" but rather amounted to a "free bet".[3] Having regard to their exchangeability for cash at the time of betting, converted credits are not appropriately analogised to the Non-Negs. Instead, they are appropriately analogised to the cash chips.
The cross-appeal
38 The ultimate issue in the cross-appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the obligation of SkyCity under cl 11 of the CDA to pay interest for late payment of casino duty at the rate of 20% per annum could be the subject of relief against enforcement if that obligation to pay interest could properly be characterised as a penalty at common law or in equity. The Court of
