Court of Appeal Dismisses £1.5m Problem Gambling Claim Against Betfair

The UK’s Court of Appeal has thrown out a case filed by a former Betfair customer who sued the operator for £1.5 million for lost bets on football. Property tycoon Lee Gibson was hoping to recoup his losses, but three senior judges dismissed the case, denying him the chance of receiving any compensation.

Gibson built his case around the argument that Betfair should have known he was a problem gambler, and that the company, which was listed in this case as TSE Malta LP, failed to uphold its player protection obligations. However, the case failed for the second time in the courts.

How did we get here?

The plaintiff, who was a millionaire with a buy-to-rent property empire under his name, had his case heard in the High Court last year. Gibson, who was a prolific bettor, placed more than 30,000 wagers between 2009 and 2019. These were focused on tricky football markets, such as Correct Scores on obscure games, before his account was suspended.

At the end of the trial case, Judge Nigel Bird was unconvinced that Betfair should have known Gibson was a problem gambler, and Gibson’s filing failed. At the Court of Appeal in October this year, Yash Kulkarni KC, representing Gibson, argued that the judge was wrong in his finding of Betfair’s knowledge of his client’s gambling problem.

Extent of gambling problem hidden

The evidence found Gibson’s losses had ballooned to £500,000 by the end of 2015 and £1 million by 2018. Despite this, Betfair treated Gibson like a VIP customer as he portrayed himself as someone who could afford to fund his gambling habit.

Golfing invitations and invitations to sit in the hospitality box at Old Trafford to watch Manchester United were offered by Betfair, although such incentives decreased over time. Although Betfair eventually dropped him as a customer in 2019, Gibson claimed Betfair should have stopped him sooner.

Gibson served cold dish by judges

Three judges were responsible for reviewing Gibson’s appeal, but Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss, Lord Justice Popplewell, and Sir Julian Flaux all reached the same conclusion. Although Gibson tried to hide his gambling problem, Sir Colin insisted the lower judge was right to dismiss Gibson’s claim.

In his judgment, Sir Colin said:

“There was a suggestion that in truth Mr Gibson could not afford his losses.

“I can see no justification for overturning the judge’s conclusion that he could, but irrespective of that, the issue is not what Mr Gibson could in fact afford but what the information he presented to Betfair showed.

“I can see no justification for allowing the appeal against the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor ought to have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler.”

Serious questions raised

The Gibson case raises questions about the financial thresholds enforced by the United Kingdom Gambling Commission (UKGC) to ensure operators carry out financial checks once a certain spending limit is reached.

From June of next year, all online operators are expected to provide customers with the option to set a deposit limit based on how much players put into their accounts over a set period.

Improvements to the existing rules are coming into effect in various stages. Nevertheless, having extra safety nets in place should empower customers to be more aware of their gambling habits moving forward.