A British real estate magnate has taken his case to the appeals court after his initial effort to sue Betfair for the £1.5 million he lost while gambling on the platform was unsuccessful.
Between 2009 and 2019, when his account was suspended, 47-year-old Lee Gibson of Leeds, England, lost almost 30,000 soccer wagers on Betfair's betting exchange. He initially sued the operator in September 2021 in the London Circuit Commercial Court, claiming that Betfair ought to have recognized his gambling issue and taken action.
"No Obligation of Care"
In November 2024, High Court Judge Nigel Bird dismissed the claim, noting that Gibson had never disclosed his gambling problem to Betfair.
Conversely, he frequently reassured employees that he was in charge of his wagers and could afford his losses, citing his wealth as a multimillionaire.
The judge further stated that there was no concrete proof that the comprehensive financial data Gibson provided to Betfair was significantly erroneous. The extent of his losses was therefore not objectively concerning; although they were significant, they seemed to be manageable.
Additionally, Bird concluded that Betfair owed Gibson no duty of care because Gibson had not requested a formal gambling restriction or enrolled in a self-exclusion program.
“A successful gambler should not be deprived of the fruits of his bet, but equally in my judgment, a losing gambler should not be able to escape the consequences of his decisions,” he added.
Judge "Wrong," Says Attorney
However, Gibson's attorney, Yash Kulkarni KC, maintained that Betfair knew more about his client's gaming than it was willing to reveal during the Court of Appeal's opening remarks, arguing that the lower court judge had erred.
“The judge ought to have found that Betfair knew or ought to have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler throughout the material time of the claim and his finding otherwise was plainly wrong,” he said.
“Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day,” he continued.
"The judge ought to have gone on to find that where a person appears likely to be gambling prolifically despite facing heavy losses, using money which appears likely to be at least in part from selling his business assets or loaning money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler, he argued.”
The case is being keenly watched because it may shed light on the legal obligations of betting organizations to detect and safeguard problem gamblers, including high-value customers.
