Slots Jackpot paid – Gambler WINS legal battle against casino for $285,000
On Friday, the District Court ruled that the Star Casino had unlawfully refused to hand over a slots jackpot won by David Joe in October. The plaintiff was granted roughly $320,000, including interest, as compensation for his loss.
A Platinum Vantage VIP club member, Mr Joe suffers from motor neurone illness. As a result, he struggles to operate the slots. As a result, he requested help from his friend Lois Lie to operate the casino slot machines.
The two people each paid $10 into the Year of the Tiger slot machine. They ended up winning not just the jackpot but also several additional prizes. Mr Joe asserted that The Star had permitted him to get assistance from a buddy in operating the slot machines.
Casino refused to pay out jackpot slots win
However, the casino refused to pay over the slots windfall. It claimed that Mr Lie was not entitled to any rewards since he had previously signed a voluntary exclusion order in October of 2016. This prohibited him from the premises and made him ineligible to receive any winnings.
Judge Montgomery concluded that Mr Joe, and not Mr Lie, was the winner of the money. Therefore, it could not be withheld. As a result, he ordered The Star Casino to pay the $285,000 jackpot plus roughly $35,000 in interest.
The judge concluded that Mr Joe was the one who was assuming all of the financial risks. This was because Mr Lie provided the gambling float and instructions.
Judge Montgomery said that the entire wagering stake and the playing instructions stemmed from Mr Joe.
Mr Joe wasn’t aware that his acquaintance had been barred since the friend had unrestricted access for six months prior.
Mr Lie said in front of the judge that he believed the exclusion order had been cancelled. He stated that the casino didn’t prevent him from attending or participating in gambling activities.
According to the judge, The Star’s decision to give the jackpot to the Responsible Gaming Fund rather than to Mr Joe was founded on an erroneous presumption that it could keep the money for itself.
The court decided that The Star’s refusal to pay the prizes to Mr Joe was misconceived and broke the contract of a wager between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Additionally, the Sydney casino was ordered to reimburse Mr Joe’s legal fees and expenses.