Lee Paul Gibson v TSE Malta (trading as Betfair) [2025] EWCA Civ 1589 concerned the question of whether Betfair knew or ought to have known Gibson was a problem gambler in the ten-year period up to 2019 when he lost the money. Gibson argued Betfair owed him a duty of care and should have taken appropriate steps to stop him and, by failing to do so, breached the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Code of Practice.
Gibson claimed, alternatively, that if Betfair breached the code then the gambling contracts were illegal and void, therefore allowing him to claim against Betfair in unjust enrichment.
At trial, the judge held Betfair did not owe a duty of care, and rejected the argument Betfair ought to have known Gibson was a problem gambler. The judge highlighted the fact Betfair made enquiries at the time about whether Gibson could afford his losses and Gibson reassured them he was wealthy with a large property portfolio. Therefore there was no breach of the Gambling Commission code. Moreover, the judge held no causation of loss had been established because, if Betfair had stopped him, Gibson would have gambled elsewhere.
Dismissing Gibson’s appeal this week, Sir Colin Birss, giving the lead judgment, rejected the premise that Betfair knew or ought to have known about his problem gambling.
Sir Colin noted evidence at trial that Gibson could afford his bets, satisfied Betfair’s anti-money laundering checks, and presented as ‘calm, level-headed and rational’.
In obiter dicta, Sir Colin agreed with the judge that the void gambling contracts argument would ‘lead to chaos’, stating it would ‘allow a losing gambler to avoid paying his gambling debts irrespective of any vulnerability and irrespective of whether the breach of the licence conditions was of any relevance to the bet in question. Such a result would be entirely contrary to the policy of the [Gambling Act 2005] which, so it seems to me, is that in general gambling debts are enforceable’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
