Crown Resorts launches defence in $4.6m problem gambler lawsuit

Crown Resorts is fighting a near $4.6m lawsuit from an ex-patron who alleges the James Packer-backed group should have known he was a gambling addict.

Crown in Melbourne is fighting a lawsuit by a former patron who alleges the casino group knew or should have known he had a gambling problem. Picture: AFP

Crown Resorts has mounted its legal defence against a $4.59m lawsuit by a former patron who alleges the casino group knew or should have known he had a gambling problem, calling an allegation the patron was exhibiting the observable signs of addiction “vague and embarrassing”.

Ahmed Hasna last month launched a Federal Court suit against Crown Melbourne for the $4.59m he claims he lost gambling at the James Packer-backed group’s flagship Southbank casino between 2016 and 2020.

In his statement of claim, Mr Hasna said on and off from 1993 he gambled predominantly at the Southbank complex’s premium Mahogany room several times a week, sometimes for more than 24 hours straight while making average bets of $19,000.

Despite Mr Hasna indefinitely self-excluding himself from the casino four times, Crown allegedly allowed him to revoke these bans, while providing him a flow of benefits to encourage his patronage such as free dinners, Phil Collins concert tickets and a family holiday to Crown’s Perth casino.

Mr Hasna’s fraught relationship with the casino was documented during hearings of the Victorian Royal Commission into Crown, where it was heard in 2016 Crown encouraged Mr Hasna to continue gaming even after he fell into $100,000 of debt due to a bounced cheque, and told staff he was in financial trouble and considering excluding himself again.

Crown’s general manager of VIP Customer Service Peter Lawrence told the commission – which is examining whether the group is suitable to retain its casino licence – that Crown’s treatment of Mr Hasna was “possibly” predatory.

Mr Hasna contended his behaviour was a demonstration of the observable signs of problem gambling contained within the company’s own Responsible Gaming Code of Conduct, and that Crown ought to be aware of this, or was “wilfully blind” to it.

In its defence filed on Tuesday, Crown said the specific allegation that Mr Hasna had exhibited the observable signs of problem gambling was “vague and embarrassing” as “it does not state which alleged Observable Sign(s) Mr Hasna is alleged to have demonstrated, or the occasion(s) on which or conduct by which he is alleged to have done so”.

However, Crown did concede “under the cover of that objection” that Mr Hasna displayed observable signs of problem gambling when petitioning for his self-exclusion, and that Crown was aware of it.

And although Crown admitted it “from time to time” offered incentives to Mr Hasna to continue gambling, Crown denied that it failed to take reasonable steps to offer Mr Hasna help or inquire about his financial, mental and emotional wellbeing.

The way Crown Resorts has handled the issue of responsible gaming at its Melbourne casino has become a major sticking point for Raymond Finkelstein, the head of royal commission into Crown, and will form a large part of his determination on whether the group holds on to its licence.

Commissioner Finkelstein is set to report on October 15.