A former high-stakes gambler at SkyCity, who reports wagering close to NZ$500 million (US$294 million) and incurring losses of approximately NZ$33 million (US$19 million) due to compulsive gambling, is attempting to maintain anonymity as he engages in legal proceedings against the New Zealand casino giant.
The plaintiff, whose identity is currently under protection, alleges that SkyCity did not provide adequate safeguards against harmful gambling behavior during his three-year tenure at its Auckland casino, as reported by The New Zealand Herald.
During a recent High Court session held in Auckland, the attorney representing the gambler, Peter Spring, contended that disclosing the individual’s identity would cause undue distress to him and his family while contributing minimally to public insight into the matter.
Chief High Court Judge Justice Sally Fitzgerald has set aside her decision regarding the request for interim name suppression, meaning the individual’s identity will remain confidential until her ruling is made.
‘Everyday Person’
Spring recognized that the case holds public significance, particularly in light of SkyCity’s responsibilities regarding host conduct. The casino had previously been compelled to shut down its Auckland operations for five days in 2024 due to violations of its harm-reduction obligations.
However, he emphasized that his client seeks only a restricted form of anonymity.
“Every detail of the case, every twist in the evidence, every nuance of the narrative can be published fully,” Spring explained in court, as reported by The Herald. “Only the name will be kept anonymous.”
Spring referred to his client as “an everyday person, just slightly more affluent than most,” despite being SkyCity Auckland’s top spender “by a factor of 50” at one point.
The plaintiff, who has Chinese heritage, expressed concern that media coverage could lead to stigma in his community, where high-risk gambling is considered detrimental to family life, according to Spring.
While acknowledging his choice to gamble, Spring asserted that the protections guaranteed by SkyCity’s continuous play and responsible gambling policies should have been afforded to his client.
“He was denied these safeguards for three years, while SkyCity benefited significantly to the tune of $33 million,” he remarked.
‘Irrational Decision’
Spring argued that wagering such significant amounts was “not a rational commercial decision,” stating that the plaintiff had since ceased gambling but continues to grapple with underlying issues related to the addiction.
On the other hand, SkyCity’s attorney, Tim Mullins, opposed the request for name suppression, dismissing the notion that the casino had any ulterior motives in wanting to reveal the man’s identity.
He maintained that the principle of open justice entitles the public to know the parties involved in the lawsuit, asserting that mere embarrassment does not justify confidentiality in this context.
“What is the basis of the embarrassment in this case?” Mullins questioned. “It occurred in a public casino located in downtown Auckland.”