Lee Gibson, a multimillionaire “drawback gambler,” has misplaced his enchantment within the Court docket of Enchantment, after suing Betfair over shedding 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 have 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.
Through the time frame 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 newest court docket doc.
Flutter Leisure is the mum or dad firm of the sportsbook operator, with different manufacturers like FanDuel and Paddy Energy beneath its firm too. It was in 2024 when Decide Nigel Fowl, within the UK Excessive Court docket, 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 responsibility 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 aren’t void.
On 8 December 2025, the Court docket 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 vast press protection and was billed as a landmark case… pic.twitter.com/hCii9TgQUU
— 3 Verulam Buildings (@3VBchambers) December 9, 2025
The brand new Court docket of Enchantment doc goes by way of every floor, earlier than a conclusion was given which reads: “Standing again, the decide thought-about the related proof, made no errors of precept in doing so and got here to a completely cheap conclusion on that proof.
“I can see no justification for permitting the enchantment in opposition to the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor should have identified that Mr Gibson was an issue gambler.”
Featured picture: Flickr, licensed beneath CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The submit Punter who sued Betfair after nearly $2 million playing loss loses enchantment appeared first on ReadWrite.
