[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1 link=same] [bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]

Skip to Content

Operator News

UK – London court yet to rule over Park Lane Club’s ‘offer’ of cash-back commission

By - 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, representing Mr Puharic outlined that casino staff offered him coffee and dinner after approaching him on the street, saying they would match or beat the best casino offers of any other Mayfair casino.

Mr Puharic claims the casino agreed to pay him a 0.9 per cent commission on his bets, matching a cash-back offer he was entitled to at other Mayfair casinos, whether he won or lost.

Guy Olliff-Cooper, representing the Park Lane casino, said: “It may have been said that the club would do its best to be competitive and would therefore consider matching terms that Mr Puharic received elsewhere. But no formal offer was made.”

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.

Share via
Copy link