Darwin's SkyCity casino has been forced to hand over the gambling records of one of its "high roller" customers to the Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Trust (GEAT).

Key points: Darwin's SkyCity casino forced to hand over gambling records of Rosalie Lalara, one of its 'high roller' customers

Darwin's SkyCity casino forced to hand over gambling records of Rosalie Lalara, one of its 'high roller' customers Court of Appeal found the Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Trust's former public officer gambled more than $1m at SkyCity

Court of Appeal found the Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Trust's former public officer gambled more than $1m at SkyCity The Trust may now be able to pursue action against the casino to recover lost funds

The Trust may now be able to pursue action against the casino to recover lost funds This is SkyCity's second appeal which was been dismissed by the court

The Northern Territory's Supreme Court of Appeal on Wednesday dismissed SkyCity's second attempt to keep the gambling activities of the Trust's former public officer, Rosalie Lalara, confidential.

Court documents showed Ms Lalara allegedly spent more than a million dollars of the Groote Eylandt Aboriginal Trust's money at the casino between 2009 and 2012, during which time she held a "high roller" or "platinum" gambler status.

That money was part of millions of dollars in mining royalties that disappeared from GEAT during that period, which was meant to be spent on the community.

In August 2014, the Supreme Court ordered SkyCity to reveal Ms Lalara's gambling records, so GEAT could determine whether it should launch action against SkyCity to recover those funds.

But SkyCity immediately appealed that decision, which was dismissed by one judge, and then applied to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed by three judges.

Their judgement said the casino had failed to show the previous decision "was wrong" and there was "no substantial injustice" in handing over the records to the Court.

It also said the casino does have records of Ms Lalara's gambling activities, which is contrary to SkyCity previous claims that it could "not distinguish the amount that Lalara won or lost on gaming machines".

The judgement said an affidavit provided by the SkyCity's general manager during the period in question, Brad Morgan, "corrected" this claim: "In fact, the applicant is able to analyse its turnover records for Ms Lalara and derive the amount of her net loss or net win".

"This new evidence is significant," the judgement said.

"We conclude that the applicant's records probably provide evidence of (1) most (if not all) of the dates on which Ms Lalara gambled on electronic gaming machines at the Casino, (2) her turnover on each machine she used, and (3) the amounts of her net losses and wins."

It also said analysis of these records "put the casino, its servants or agents on notice that the moneys Ms Lalara gambled were not her own, and/or that some appropriate enquiries should be made".

The judges agreed with the previous ruling that SkyCity was aware Ms Lalara used money that may have been "in breach of trust".

The judges also found that the GEAT "would be in a very much better position to determine whether it has a cause of action against the applicant".

Current SkyCity general manager Callum Mallet would not comment on the failed appeal, but said SkyCity did not want to provide Ms Lalara's records because it wants to keep its customers' information private.

Casino 'might have wanted to avoid precedent'

A gambling researcher from Monash University said forcing a casino to reveal a customer's gambling records is not entirely unprecedented in Australia, but it is unusual.

"The novelty in this case is the casino appears not to have wanted to cooperate," Dr Charles Livingstone said.

"Instead of complying with the normal civil process, where the parties exchange information which is relevant to the case, the casino has attempted to resist that."

Mr Livingstone said it suggests the casino was concerned about revealing the records, since it had a duty to enquire if the money was coming from proceeds of crime.

"If the casino became aware that large of sums of money — up to a million dollars or more — were being gambled from someone who had a reasonably modest occupation and reasonably income, it's reasonable to assume that they should make enquiry as to where the money was coming from," Mr Livingstone said.

Mr Livingstone said the casino may also have resisted the court's rulings because it did not want to set a precedent.

"If this information is then used in a successful legal action, arguing the casino had a duty to interrogate where the money was coming from, then it opens the floodgates to other people making similar claims in the future," Mr Livingstone said.