Judge Dismisses Star Sydney Court Case

A judge at the New South Wales Supreme Court dismisses a court case against Star Sydney without even hearing Star's defense.

There are not many people who enjoy losing money through gambling, especially when they lose vast sums playing casino games. However, losing is part and parcel of playing at the casino; you enjoy the wins and suck up the losses. That is unless you are Kim Nguyen, who attempted to take Star Sydney to court to recoup her gambling losses. You cannot blame her for trying because those losses amounted to $950,000.

Star Entertainment banned Nguyen from its Sydney property in April last year. Nguyen did not contest the ban at the time, but changed her mind and took Star Sydney to court. Nguyen claims Star Sydney issued her with a verbal one-year ban before removing her from the casino VIP program. The beauty therapist from Fairfield East initially took the ban on the chin, citing COVID-19 and family issues.

Nguyen completed a U-turn after her ban prevented her from taking up the role of a travel host at Star Sydney. Angry at missing out on a career change, Nguyen filed a claim with the NSW Supreme Court. She sought to revoke the ban, in addition to winning back the $950,000 she lost playing high roller casino games.

NSW Supreme Court Dismisses Case

The court heard Nguyen’s side of the story. She claims the casino withdrew her membership without a reason. Furthermore, Nguyen went on record stating Star Sydney made “misleading statements to the police” about her. The reason for her court case soon became apparent: she wanted her $950,000 losses back.

Nguyen told the court she has $2,500 credit left from her membership that Star Sydney refuses to honour. Star Sydney denies this.

Court documents neglect to show how Nguyen lost close to a million dollars or over what timeframe. Press reports suggest Nguyen had a penchant for roulette games, pokies, and other high stakes gambling. We will never fully know because the judge threw the case out of court.

Associate Justice Joanne Harrison informed Nguyen of the decision.

“This court is prohibited by legislation from granting relief in relation to an exclusion order.”

There was no other choice other than for the court dismissing the case. The judge decided against offering Nguyen another opportunity to replead her statement of claim. Why? Because Nguyen “does not have a viable cause of action.”

There was one final twist before the legal teams left the court. Associate Justice Joanne Harrison ordered Nguyen to pay Star Sydney’s legal costs, thus rubbing salt into her wounds.

Other Cases Of Gamblers Suing Casinos

Nguyen was not the first gambler to sue a casino, nor will she be the last. A wealthy Malaysian businessman took Crown Resorts-owned Aspinalls to court after losing £3.9 million ($6.73 million) in 72 hours playing baccarat at the high-end London casino.

Property and steel tycoon Han Joeh Lim claimed Aspinalls breached the 2005 Gambling Act by allowing him to gamble on credit. Aspinalls gave him £1.9 million credit, which he lost, before adding another £2 million. Again, Lim lost the lot.

Lim, like Nguyen mentioned above, lost his case. Indeed, Aspinalls countersued Lim for not repaying money he lost. The court ruled in Aspinalls’ favour and fined Lim a further £100,000.

The Park Lane Club in Mayfair, London, found itself in court in November 2020 in a bizarre case. Croatian businessman Juste Puharic won almost £1.5 million between May 26-30, 2015. Although he won, Puharic claims he only won such an amount because the casino continually encouraged him to play with a cash-back offer. Park Lane refused to pay any cash-back, and Puharic took the matter to court.

Puharic logged a claim for £243,518, with is a 0.9% commission on his total wagers. The judge in charge of the court case sided with the casino.

“In my judgement, 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.”