Lee Gibson, a multimillionaire “drawback gambler,” has misplaced his enchantment within the Courtroom of Enchantment, after suing Betfair over losing close-to £1.5 million ($2 million) on playing.
Gibson claimed that the betting platform had an obligation to guard him from himself, as they had been conscious of the gambling-related hurt he was struggling.
The gambler had positioned greater than 30,000 particular person bets with Betfair between 2009 and 2019, and he has been attempting to reclaim round £1,000,000.
In the course of the time period listed, Gibson owned a big property portfolio of tenanted properties which was reported to have been producing substantial rental earnings, with this highlighted within the latest court document.
Flutter Leisure is the father or mother firm of the sportsbook operator, with different manufacturers like FanDuel and Paddy Energy below its firm too. It was in 2024 when Decide Nigel Chook, within the UK Excessive Courtroom, rejected the case, however this was then appealed by the punter.
Enchantment in Betfair case is rejected
The enchantment was rejected on Monday (December 8) with Gibson’s declare initially being on 5 grounds. The primary floor aimed to problem the conclusion that there was no breach of the license circumstances, whereas floor 2(a) challenged the discovering of no obligation of care.
Floor 2(b) challenged the discovering of no negligence, whereas floor 2(c) challenged causation. Lastly, the fifth floor, challenged the conclusion about s33 of the Playing Act that playing contracts entered into in breach of the licensing circumstances are usually not void.
On 8 December 2025, the Courtroom of Enchantment handed down judgment in Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair) [2025] EWCA Civ 1589, dismissing the enchantment introduced by a former Betfair Alternate buyer. The October 2025 listening to attracted extensive press protection and was billed as a landmark case… pic.twitter.com/hCii9TgQUU
— 3 Verulam Buildings (@3VBchambers) December 9, 2025
The brand new Courtroom of Enchantment doc goes via every floor, earlier than a conclusion was given which reads: “Standing again, the choose thought-about the related proof, made no errors of precept in doing so and got here to a completely affordable conclusion on that proof.
“I can see no justification for permitting the enchantment towards the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor must have identified that Mr Gibson was an issue gambler.”
Featured picture: Flickr, licensed below CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The submit Punter who sued Betfair after almost $2 million gambling loss loses appeal appeared first on ReadWrite.
