Operatörsnyheter
UK – London court yet to rule over Park Lane Club’s ‘offer’ of cash-back commission
By phil - 13 november 2020
Croatian businessman Juste Puharic is suing The Park Lane Club in Mayfair after spending £27m over five days in May 2015 playing roulette there, after the casino failed to pay-up the commission on the best he made despite paying his £1.5m winnings.
He claims he staked the amount because casino staff encouraged him with a cash-back offer on his bets. He believes he is ‘contractually entitled’ to £243,518, representing a 0.9 per cent commission on his bets of £27,057,621, in addition to the £1,466,056.
The casinos is owned by Silverbond Enterprises, who has recently had its licence revoked.
Christopher Bamford, som representerar Mr Puharic, berättade att kasinopersonalen bjöd honom på kaffe och middag efter att ha närmat sig honom på gatan och sa att de skulle matcha eller slå de bästa casinoerbjudandena från alla andra Mayfair-kasino.
Herr Puharic hävdar att kasinot gick med på att betala honom 0.9 procent i provision på sina insatser, vilket matchade ett cashback-erbjudande han hade rätt till på andra Mayfair-kasinon, oavsett om han vann eller förlorade.
Guy Olliff-Cooper, som representerar Park Lane casino, sa: "Det kan ha sagts att klubben skulle göra sitt bästa för att vara konkurrenskraftig och skulle därför överväga att matcha villkor som Mr Puharic fick någon annanstans. Men inget formellt bud lämnades.”
Mr Olliff-Cooper added that the member of staff who approached Mr Puharic in the street was ‘not particularly interested’ in encouraging him to play at the casino. He told Judge Gavin Mansfield QC that ‘he was simply trying to be polite’.
He added: “Casinos use a variety of incentives to attract customers. The defendant’s position is simply that it never made him this matching offer. The defendant did not offer to match or better the incentives that Mr Puharic received at other Mayfair casinos. The only incentive offered to roulette players at the Park Lane Club was discretionary free hospitality and commission which could be used as a ‘discount on losses’ but not claimed by a player who came out on top. The defendant did not offer to match or better the incentives that Mr Puharic received at other Mayfair casinos. This action should be dismissed.”
He added that discretionary free hospitality and commission which can be used as a ‘discount on losses’, could not be claimed back by a player who won.
