Local casino in Sydney directed to pay $285,000 jackpot to disabled man after withholding the amount for three years

Published on:

A district court in Sydney has directed a local casino to pay a total winning sum of $ 285,000 won by a disabled person named David Joe with the help of another gambler back in October 2019.

To note, David had won the jackpot amount with the help of one of his friends Lois Lie who was previously banned at the casino. Despite winning the prize money, the casino management allegedly denied paying the sum but the winners of the prize money decided to take the matter to court.

David Joe suffers from motor neuron disease

Eventually, Joe was handed about $320,000 including interest in the district court, which ruled the decision in the petitioner’s favor and said that the casino illegally refused to hand over the winning prize money.

During the court proceedings, it was revealed that David asked his friend Lois Lie to help him operate the pokies in the casino. The petitioner also claimed that at first casino management had agreed for Lie to help him in operating the gaming machine, but later they stated that his friend had signed a voluntary exclusion order in October 2016 and he was banned from the casino and was not entitled to any winnings.

“In the context of their playing machines for several hours, [Joe’s] truly significant disability plainly deprived him of the ability to operate the machines himself for enjoyment,” wrote Judge Robert Montgomery according to The Guardian.

“The whole of the economic stake wagered during the operation of gaming machines by Mr. Lie, whilst [Joe’s] card was inserted and he watched and gave Mr. Lie directions, was [Joe’s] money,” the judge said.

The district court in the end ruled the decision in favour of the petitioner and directed the local casino to pay the full amount with interest after holding the prize money for so many years.

“Accordingly, [Star’s] failure to pay the winnings … was misconceived and breached the contract of a wager between the plaintiff and the defendant,” the judge ruled.