…
[56] Finally, the applicant Marie contends that, since the Monopoly game was merely one event in a series of Christmas games (the overall winner of which would receive the parties’ mother’s hand-knitted novelty sweater) the respondent Ray’s action of overturning the board constituted cheating and is thus a disqualifying offence.
[57] However, on the bases raised by the respondent’s representative, I find for the respondent, that to overturn the board is distinguishable from cheating even in the context of the Monopoly game being part of a larger competition, for the following reasons:
(a) Ray was aware that overturning the board would result in an additional game being played to decide the outcome of the tournament; and
(b) Per the applicant’s own submissions, “Ray is shit at all the other games”; and
(c) There was no conclusive evidence that Ray was on the cusp of loss.
I will address (a) and (b) in conjunction, followed by (c).
Awareness of the tournament’s nature
[58] Ray’s awareness that another game would be added to the roster if the current game were interrupted is not proof that his forcible resignation constituted cheating.
[59] However, the applicant’s submission is that ‘Ray knew it was over and wanted to try playing something else’.
[60] I find this contradicts the applicant’s prior statement (see the Statutory Declaration made 13 October 2023) that “Ray is shit at all the other games we’d prepared”. It seems to me that, had he truly believed he was about to lose, Ray would have continued to play, in the hope of gaining at least a single win.
The game’s possible outcomes
[61] I am not required to make findings concerning the game’s likely winner, or the possibilities further play might have afforded. It is enough to demonstrate, per s 53(1)(c) of the Fair Christmas Games Act 2009 (Qld), that Ray was not on the ‘cusp of loss’. The meaning of this phrase was discussed in Kringle v Krampus (2021) FCA 415, by Voyzeck J at [29]:
The phrase ‘cusp of loss’ communicates more than a merely ‘unfortunate position’ or even ‘multiple setbacks.’ It must be demonstrated that the affected party had ‘no reasonable chance’ of winning the game, or, given the ‘slow-death’ nature of their position, emerging from the ordeal either way with a scrap of dignity remaining.
[62] Rather than being a reaction to his place on the ‘cusp of loss’, Ray’s overturning of the table was merely an overreaction to a single unfortunate turn, in which he lost a profit opportunity due to the interruption of the dice roll by the family cat Hannibal.
[63] Incidentally, I believe Ray would likely have won in a few more turns, as he had possession of, inter alia, Mayfair and Park Place; he possessed the four train stations and each of the orange properties; finally, he was close to purchasing Atlantic Avenue and being capable of building on yellow properties. However, it is unnecessary for me to make a finding on this issue.
…
verso folio 