A man who gambled £27,000,000 during a five-night stay in a casino has lost his case at the High Court.
Juste Puharic claimed that the Park Lane Club in Mayfair owed him nearly £250,000 after he spent £27 million at the casino in 2015, ending his stay £1.2 million in credit.
However, that claim was dismissed by the judge, who said that he was a well-known figure among the casinos of the swanky London borough.
Judge Gavin Mansfield reached the conclusion that Mr Puharic had not reached a ‘concluded agreement’ surrounding incentives and bonuses with Silverbond Enterprises.
The High Court heard the evidence in November, but Judge Mansfield’s ruling was announced on Wednesday.
He ruled: “Over five nights in May 2015 the claimant played roulette at the club.
“Those nights were the first and last times he played at the club. Despite a loss on his first night, the claimant was successful overall: he won £1,240,900.
“The claimant was paid his winnings. This claim concerns an additional amount: a bonus or incentive.
“The claimant claims an incentive was offered to induce him to play at the club. He says he would not have played at the club without such an incentive.”
Naturally, the casino disputed Mr Puharic’s account of events, and the judge has now ruled in its favour.
The judge continued: “In my judgment, there was no concluded agreement reached between the parties about bonuses or incentives.
“The claimant was paid his winnings and is entitled to no further sum.”
The claim centred around an alleged incentive upon which Mr Puharic claimed he would be paid 0.9 percent commission on his stakes at the Roulette table.
That led him to claim to be ‘contractually entitled’ to the money he went to court over.
Guy Olliff-Cooper, speaking in November on behalf of the Park Lane Club, denied that a formal offer had been made, and said the person who approached him was ‘not particularly interested’ in getting him onto the tables, but was ‘simply trying to be polite’.
Mr Olliff-Cooper said: “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.
“This action should be dismissed.”