A big-spending gambler who claimed he wasn’t liable for £600,000 of debt he ran up at an exclusive Mayfair club in just one night because he was “blackout drunk” has lost his case.
The case was brought by ultra-exclusive casino Aspinalls after Lester Hui blew £589,724 playing double chance baccarat and then refused to pay up.
The nightclub owner told the court that he wasn’t liable for the debt because the casino’s staff had plied him with drinks, including Chinese liquor Mao Tai - often dubbed “firewater”.
But in a ruling on Friday, High Court judge Mr Justice Cotter ruled that Mr Hui was in fact liable for the debt and ordered steps to be taken for it to be repaid.
The court heard that Mr Hui, a member of the private members’ club on Curzon Street since 1998, was part of an elite tier of heavy-spending customers who would be given a “concierge service” with complimentary food and drink.
On February 9 2016, Mr Hui attended a special meal at the club for Chinese New Year with guests where they ordered 11 bottles of complimentary high-end wines and champagne.
He then racked up eye-watering losses, losing some £400,000 in just over 20 minutes and nearly £600,000 in total.
He alleged that he had drunk three-and-a-half bottles of champagne and wine, and five to ten shots of 53 per cent proof Mao Tai, the rough equivalent of a litre of vodka. He also alleged staff had ignored a self-imposed request to only gamble £30,000.
But Aspinalls launched claim for recovery in September 2019 demanding he pay up, insisting Mr Hui was sober enough to make clear decisions and even drove himself home across London afterwards.
It said that its staff would not have encouraged any gamblers to continue gambling or ply them with additional drinks if they were already too drunk.
In the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Cotter said Mr Hui “significantly exaggerated the amount of alcohol he consumed” and had in fact not been plied with Mao Tai by staff.
He also noted that Mr Hui later accepted a trip to Finland offered by Aspinalls to drive a Bentley on a frozen lake, suggesting he did not then feel wronged by the casino.
He added that Mr Hui drove 20 miles home on the night in question - meaning he likely was not that drunk.
“I am satisfied that whatever Mr Hui did drink (which is probably very significantly less than he claims he drank), it did not have a readily observable effect upon him such that members of staff noticed, or should have noticed,” he ruled.
The parties must now agree a draft order for repayment between them.
