The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A web shop operator is demanding that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) “rescind” a letter requiring it to apply for a provisional gaming licence, and accept the Gaming Board’s regulatory jurisdiction in Freeport.

Carlson Shurland, who represents Jarol Investment, trading as Chances Games, told Tribune Business that “the only thing” dividing his client and the GBPA was the latter’s January 25, 2016 letter.

In that document, Freeport’s quasi-governmental regulator demanded that Chances Games apply to it for a provisional gaming licence, adding that its authority stemmed from the Gaming Act 2014 and accompanying regulations.

Fred Smith QC, the GBPA’s attorney, subsequently admitted in an August 31, 2016, letter that his client had been “incorrect” in stating that the lawful basis for its licence request stemmed from the Gaming Act.

Instead, he asserted that the GBPA’s licensing authority was derived from the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, and made no mention of his client withdrawing its January 25, 2016, letter.

Chances Games fears that without the GBPA confirming the withdrawal of that letter, and its contents, the issue is left open to further conflict in the future, potentially exposing its Freeport operations to ‘double regulation and taxation’.

And the web shop chain is warning that its business development and expansion plans are “entirely and directly dependent” on resolving its dispute with the GBPA over the provisional gaming licence.

Speaking ahead of today’s Judicial Review hearing on the matter, Mr Shurland accused Mr Smith of “dwelling on a non-issue”, which was an ‘clarification’ letter sent to himself on February 23, 2016.

This, too, did not rescind the previous January 25 letter, and Mr Shurland told Tribune Business: “The issue is that letter of January 25.

“That letter deals with the Port Authority asking my client to pay for a provisional gaming licence. It is very clear, very unambiguous where it’s saying they’re relying on the Gaming Act 2014 and the Gaming Rules 2015 to issue a provisional gaming licence.”

The January 25, 2016, letter prompted Chances Games to become one of at least two web shop chains who have launched separate legal challenges to the GBPA’s bid to issue gaming licences to them, and levy an associated 50-fold fee increase.

They are effectively arguing that the GBPA is trying to “usurp” the Gaming Board as the web shop industry’s regulator, and that the former has no power to issue provisional gaming licences - and charge associated fees - for their Freeport operations.

Chances Games is thus effectively asking the Supreme Court to determine who is the appropriate regulator and licensor for its Freeport operations, and to whom it should pay related gaming taxes, at the three-day hearing scheduled to begin today.

Mr Shurland told Tribune Business that the GBPA, through Mr Smith’s August 31 letter, had “accepted the reference to the Gaming Board is incorrect”, yet it had not accepted his invitation - contained in two letters - to rescind the January 25 document.

“Unless they rescind and do a clarification, it’s like sanctioning their authority,” Mr Shurland said, explaining Chances Games’ dilemma. “By not rescinding that letter, they [the GBPA] leave that issue of the provisional gaming licence open.

“All we want them to say is that that letter is no longer applicable; that the content relating to the provisional gaming licence is no longer relevant.”

In his first letter, dated August 4, 2016, and addressed to Nicola Colebrooke, the GBPA’s customer relations manager, Mr Shurland acknowledged that the quasi-governmental authority had “approved and renewed” Chances Games’ 2016-2017 Business Licence.

Yet he added: “It is incumbent that we seek clarification of the contents of your letter dated January 25, 2016, where you demanded that our client apply for provisional gaming licence(s) pursuant to the Gaming Act 2014 and Gaming Rules 2015, with a corresponding inordinate increase of fees and threats of any future gaming license(s).

“Further, can you confirm whether the contents of that letter are no longer relevant, and that you adopt our position that it is only the Gaming Board of the Bahamas, which is established by law, that can lawfully demand and issue gaming licences for all gaming operations in the Bahamas, inclusive of Freeport.”

After receiving no response, Mr Shurland again sought “further and better particulars, and clarification” via an August 21, 2016, letter.

And he added: “We wish to advise your good office that your failure to acknowledge and/or respond to our letter is prejudicial to our client’s position, as they are in the process of developing a strategic plan for future development and expansion of Chances Games, which is entirely and directly dependent on the GBPA’s position regarding the issuance of its provisional gaming licence.”

The GBPA is likely resisting Chances Games’ demands because to “rescind” its letter, and the provisional gaming licence request, would potentially undermine its case that it is the licensing authority for all gaming activities in Freeport - not the Gaming Board.

Mr Shurland, meanwhile, hit out at Mr Smith over the GBPA’s late bid to strike out Chances Games’ Judicial Review in what are largely technicalities.

He added that himself, and his client, had been placed at a disadvantage by only being served with the relevant documents on September 1, 2016, giving him little time to respond and defend the GBPA’s motion.

“I am at a disadvantage,” Mr Shurland complained. “It is prejudicial to me at such short notice that I have to argue the substantial application for Judicial Review, and at the same time start preparing for arguing the motion to strike out at 3pm on Friday.

“I just want to state that I’m very disappointed in Mr Smith’s approach to this Judicial Review when, in fact, he was privy to all the submissions and the substantive amendments from June of this year.”

Mr Shurland said the transcript from the Supreme Court hearing, at which Chances Games was given permission to bring the Judicial Review action, showed that Mr Smith had no objection then to the case proceeding forward.

“Mr Smith waited until the 11th hour,” he complained. “He served my office on September 1 with a motion to dismiss the substantive application, the one he had no objection to hearing.”