Punter sues on casino changes

A high-roller has gone to court, saying Sky City Casino has taken steps to cut his chances of winning.

Martyn Raymond Jones, a Parnell company director and skilled blackjack player, has won more than $800,000 from the casino.

The action in the High Court at Auckland is the culmination of years of bad blood between them.

Court action started a couple of months ago after Mr Jones was served with a trespass notice over an incident involving a $100 chip belonging to a female player.

The casino says he stole the chip, but Mr Jones says he took the chip with the woman's consent for drycleaning costs after she spilled red wine on him.

Mr Jones has sought a judicial review against the trespass notice, to be heard next month. Pending the hearing, the casino gave an undertaking allowing Mr Jones back on the "same level of service."

But Mr Jones' lawyer, Peter Spring, went back to court yesterday alleging that the casino had breached the terms of the undertaking.

He asked Justice Judith Potter to rule that the casino was in contempt of court and fine it $10,000.

Mr Spring said that the casino had instituted measures to curtail Mr Jones' ability to win.

Mr Jones was a "restricted player," someone the casino did not like because he won at the tables.

Mr Spring said that after being readmitted under the terms of undertaking at the end of May, Mr Jones won $133,000. But then the casino instituted "countermeasures."

Mr Spring said that while the casino might ordinarily be entitled to introduce the operational changes, as far as his client was concerned the casino breached its undertaking to return to the status quo.

The measures complained of relate to the introduction of a card-cut device which regulates the number of cards in an eight-pack shoe that the croupier can deal, the alleged appointment of a "personal supervisor" who followed Mr Jones wherever he went and the introduction of continuous card-shuffling machines on the high-denomination tables favoured by Mr Jones.

The casino's lawyer, Simon Stokes, said the new measures were not introduced for Mr Jones alone.

The introduction of the card-cut device was a response to a Casino Control Authority demand that the casino comply with a rule relating to the minimum number of cards in a shoe which the dealer can deal.

He said that a supervisor made sure that the card-cut device was installed correctly. The supervisor followed the card-cut device, which followed the restricted players, of whom there were more than 20, including Mr Jones.

Justice Potter reserved her decision.