An average man in the street – and yet a very rich one who spent and lost a lot of money at the casino.

That was one depiction of a former SkyCity high roller heard at the High Court in Auckland today.

He, the plaintiff, is suing the casino company.

An average man in the street – and yet a very rich one who spent and lost a lot of money at the casino.

That was one depiction of a former SkyCity high roller heard at the High Court in Auckland today.

He, the plaintiff, is suing the casino company. And SkyCity says the public has a right to know his name.

The plaintiff’s counsel Peter Spring said his client developed a pathological gambling problem, losing about $33 million at the casino on turnover of nearly half a billion dollars.

“It’s an accepted fact that the defendant lost its licence for five days. Definitely the public interest is engaged. We do not shy from that.”

SkyCity had to shut the Auckland casino for five days in 2024 after an Internal Affairs prosecution for breaches of host responsibility.

Spring said his client was not demanding wide-ranging suppression.

He invoked an old muzzle-loading firearm, known to scatter its shot in a wide spread, as the antithesis of his client’s approach.

“Rather than a blunderbuss or a shotgun, we’re using a sniper’s rifle or a razor,” he told Justice Sally Fitzgerald, the Chief High Court Judge.

Spring said the client only wanted his name and address suppressed from publication, to protect him and his family from denigration.

“My client isn’t a celebrity. He’s an average man in the street, just a little richer than most.”

What mattered was the public interest in gambling, especially problem gambling, Spring said.

The man is of Chinese origin. Spring said in Chinese culture, casino gambling for high stakes was viewed with odium and as destructive to family life.

He suggested SkyCity had an ulterior motive for opposing name suppression.

“It is extraordinary ... They’ve gone to the trouble of engaging a Chinese law firm to dredge up a whole heap of material on my client.”

Spring said his client at one point early this decade was “the biggest customer by a factor of 50” at the Auckland casino.

He said the casino company viewed his client as vulnerable and sensitive.

Although the man had chosen to gamble, he was entitled to have the protection of continuous play rules, Spring said.

“He was deprived of those protections for a period of three years and SkyCity profited from that to the tune of 33 million dollars.“

Spring argued a lack of protection, not wanton self-indulgence, influenced his client to become a problem gambler.

“We are going to have him assessed by a psychologist,” he added.

“It’s not a rational commercial act to spend money of that magnitude on gambling. It goes beyond leisure.”

Spring said the man’s gambling demonstrated ill-discipline, and he had since gone cold turkey, but still had the pathology.

“Every scintilla of the case, every permutation of the evidence, every wrinkle in the story can be published intact. Simply the name is anonymised,” he added.

“A man’s compulsive gambling and its effect on his wife and children is as private as information gets.”

SkyCity counsel Tim Mullins took issue with suggestions the company had an ulterior motive.

He said the public had a right to know who was suing whom.

“SkyCity just has the same open justice starting point ... Absent specific adverse effects, the principle of open justice won’t be displaced.”

Mullins said the man’s embarrassment was not enough to justify his name being suppressed.

“What is the source of the embarrassment here?” he added. “It’s happened at a public casino in the middle of town in Auckland in front of various people who were there.”

Mullins said the public had a wide variety of views about gambling, vaping, smoking and other behaviours.

He said open justice must be the starting point and to decide otherwise would set a bad precedent for civil cases.

Mullins said the facts showed this was not a case of a casino behaving badly.

Justice Fitzgerald reserved her decision on the plaintiff’s application for interim suppression, meaning she will deliver it at a future date.

His name and address remain suppressed.

John Weekes is a business journalist covering aviation. He also has experience covering consumer affairs, crime, politics and courts.