Gambler who lost £1.5m at Betfair takes case to appeals court

[conker]

An

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

popped up this morning about a gambler called Lee Gibson, 47, who is taking his £1.5m case to the appeals court, having had his previous High Court case dismissed.

Gibson, a property tycoon and avid football bettor, claims to have incurred significant losses at Betfair over the course of a decade. He is believed to have bet well over £1m during the 10 year period.

Once again it raises questions about the responsibilities of gambling companies to ensure their customers are not getting themselves into serious financial peril. However, there is certainly a counter argument that some of that responsibility needs to be taken by the individual.

Some background:

Lee Gibson’s journey into the world of online betting began in 2009, and over the next ten years, he placed more than 30,000 bets on Betfair. His betting activities were primarily focused on “correct score” markets, often involving lesser-known matches, and he frequently wagered substantial amounts, sometimes up to £20,000 per bet.

The previous High Court ruling:

In a ruling delivered by Judge Nigel Bird, the High Court found that Betfair could not reasonably have known that Gibson was a problem gambler. The judge noted that Gibson had consistently assured the platform that he could afford his gambling activities, including his losses. Furthermore, the evidence presented indicated that he had passed anti-money laundering checks, which complicated his claims of financial distress.

The appeal process:

Following the High Court’s decision, Gibson’s legal team took the case to the Court of Appeal, where they argued that the initial ruling was flawed. They maintained that the sheer volume of Gibson’s betting activity should have raised red flags for Betfair, suggesting that the company ought to have recognised the signs of a potential gambling addiction.

Source: iGamingPost

As it currently stands, Betfair Casino has a 'not recommended status at Casinomeister.

 

[mack341]

Not sure he should win but in a way the ukgc have created this situation with all their stipulations, yet allowing a wager of £20,000 on a correct score prediction would indicate the system is incoherent in terms of strict application of gambling harm controls. (And not forgetting it is illegal to allow more than a £5 spin on a slot game).

Really it should be down to the individual to control their gambling but the ukgc have clearly stated it is not a sole matter and the operator is also obliged to concern themselves and actively intervene.

 

[interlog]

From the quotes of the article, it looks like Betfair has done what it needed to do in terms of checking the gambling activity and was assured no gambling problems and it also looks source of wealth checks were done as well.

For me, it is then down to the gambler who should take responsibility for their actions (something clearly lacking here).

This, and other matters, will only result in gambling providers leaving the UK market - too much interference and "think of the children" mentallity.

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

Done more than that on bonanza on 40p

 

[slaman29]

Reminds me of that case I shared, can't find it now, where the family member sued casino where family funds were stolen and used to gamble. Responsibility of the casino to not prey on someone with a clear problem. I don't know how far this kind of thing will go. In this guy's case, it was his money and he could afford it.

 

[YouTubeSlots]

​

 

[Kroffe]

I have to agree with what everyone else is saying, if he passed affordability checks multiple times over the years while repeatedly telling them he was in control and could afford his habits then what is the Casino supposed to do?
Something tells me he would have taken them to court if they closed his account as well.

8+ bets per day over a 10 year period is fairly high tho, right?

 

[dunover]

I have to agree with what everyone else is saying, if he passed affordability checks multiple times over the years while repeatedly telling them he was in control and could afford his habits then what is the Casino supposed to do?
Something tells me he would have taken them to court if they closed his account as well.

8+ bets per day over a 10 year period is fairly high tho, right?

Playing Bonanza is he?

 

[Avernite]

Bit of a tricky one.

I get he would have passed their box ticking exercise, but wouldn't a problem gambler lie about that anyway? I feel like if you're dropping $20k bets you'd expect the casino to have far more rigorous RG and AML procedures.

 

[mack341]

From the quotes of the article, it looks like Betfair has done what it needed to do in terms of checking the gambling activity and was assured no gambling problems and it also looks source of wealth checks were done as well.

For me, it is then down to the gambler who should take responsibility for their actions (something clearly lacking here).

This, and other matters, will only result in gambling providers leaving the UK market - too much interference and "think of the children" mentallity.

What made them then suspend his account when they did is the Q that comes to mind. If he did something that they'd previously accepted but this time he was blocked, then that's when it gets interesting, he may get back some of his losses I suspect.

If it's actually gone to a full appeal hearing rather than an application to appeal, the judges must accept he has some arguable grounds.

Then again if he wins it could open the floodgates, but that could also benefit the legal sector with all the claims.

I think there could be an element of thinking the gambling firms have had it too good for too long and must pay back something, or it'll be no Betfair did everything right and even saved you from worse losses.

 

[mack341]

Another point came to me re this case, didn't the UKGC ban VIP accounts a few yrs back?

I think in the articles online it states the court reserves judgement or something and will announce it later in December, which would indicate to me they need a bit of extra time to work out their reasoning. If they reject his appeal on the same basis of the original hearing then it wouldn't take much working out. But perhaps they also have to decide whether he can appeal further to the supreme court, I think it's an oddity of the UK system that the COA decides whether you can take it further to the SC.

I think the SC recently decided the car finance claim narrowly in favour of the banks and lenders, so that case went that far, could this.

In a way there's no bad side for the legal sector, all the work debating points of law keeps them in clover. They might quite like parting this guy from more of his cash!

 

[dunover]

Another point came to me re this case, didn't the UKGC ban VIP accounts a few yrs back?

I think in the articles online it states the court reserves judgement or something and will announce it later in December, which would indicate to me they need a bit of extra time to work out their reasoning. If they reject his appeal on the same basis of the original hearing then it wouldn't take much working out. But perhaps they also have to decide whether he can appeal further to the supreme court, I think it's an oddity of the UK system that the COA appeal decides whether you can take it further to the SC.

I think the SC recently decided the car finance claim narrowly in favour of the banks and lenders, so that case went that far, could this.

That might be the case - but bear in mind these cases often refer to historical transgressions that take years to filter through the excruciatingly slow machinations of the UKGC and legal process.

 

[mack341]

That might be the case - but bear in mind these cases often refer to historical transgressions that take years to filter through the excruciatingly slow machinations of the UKGC and legal process.

Yeah, oh no I didn't think BF would be that careless!

But it's something for him to point to, if part of his angle was they were rewarding him for his custom. (Incl extreme bets on correct scores) In a way they're poacher and gamekeeper in that scenario, probably why UKGC banned VIP practices.

It's a complicated case if the judges want it to be.

 

[mack341]

According to Grok they haven't:

No, the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has not outright outlawed VIP accounts in gambling. Instead, it introduced strict regulations in October 2020 through a new code of conduct, in collaboration with the Betting and Gaming Council. These rules require operators to perform enhanced affordability checks, monitor betting behavior, prohibit incentives based on losses, ban under-25s from joining, and ensure senior management oversight.

The UKGC warned that failure to comply could lead to a full ban, but no such prohibition has been enacted as of October 2025.

A July 2025 UKGC report shows these measures have reduced VIP schemes by 95% per operator, with no widespread consumer harm reported, indicating the reforms have been effective without needing a total outlaw.

Earlier discussions in 2020–2022, including the Gambling Act review, considered a ban due to concerns over problem gambling—VIPs often account for a large share of deposits despite being a small customer group—but the voluntary code addressed these without escalation.

Ongoing updates to UK gambling laws in 2025 focus on broader protections like self-exclusion and deposit limits, but VIP schemes remain permissible under the tightened framework.
----------
I wonder if BF still use them though??

 

[Earn Apps]

It’s definitely a complex case. balancing personal responsibility and operator accountability is tricky. Platforms like Betfair follow the checks, but gambling habits can easily spiral if users aren’t careful. For players who enjoy gaming responsibly and want a more transparent experience *snip* offers fair play features and real-earning opportunities with strict deposit controls.

 

[paul7388]

According to Grok they haven't:

No, the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has not outright outlawed VIP accounts in gambling. Instead, it introduced strict regulations in October 2020 through a new code of conduct, in collaboration with the Betting and Gaming Council. These rules require operators to perform enhanced affordability checks, monitor betting behavior, prohibit incentives based on losses, ban under-25s from joining, and ensure senior management oversight.

The UKGC warned that failure to comply could lead to a full ban, but no such prohibition has been enacted as of October 2025.

A July 2025 UKGC report shows these measures have reduced VIP schemes by 95% per operator, with no widespread consumer harm reported, indicating the reforms have been effective without needing a total outlaw.

Earlier discussions in 2020–2022, including the Gambling Act review, considered a ban due to concerns over problem gambling—VIPs often account for a large share of deposits despite being a small customer group—but the voluntary code addressed these without escalation.

Ongoing updates to UK gambling laws in 2025 focus on broader protections like self-exclusion and deposit limits, but VIP schemes remain permissible under the tightened framework.
----------
I wonder if BF still use them though??

Don't forget tho the case In question here is regarding the player making all those bets between 2009 and 2019 before all the strict guidelines came out.

But in the end he showed that he had money and owned all these properties etc. So guess the casino would think well he can afford it and it's his choice if he wants to gamble large amounts if he can afford it.

Think it was kroffe that mentioned that he placed several bets a day for years so would casino not think it was not normal to bet so much. Lol my bets are way smaller but I'd say i probably put at least 10 bets a day minimum every day and have done for many a year.

Even today I'm not actually gambling a lot but still placed about 15 bets on in play foreign football . Weekend and when there's proper football on I place loads more. Bet inplay it wins do more bets. Can end up doing about 7 bets on 1 game alone if first bet wins.

 

[mack341]

Don't forget tho the case In question here is regarding the player making all those bets between 2009 and 2019 before all the strict guidelines came out.

But in the end he showed that he had money and owned all these properties etc. So guess the casino would think well he can afford it and it's his choice if he wants to gamble large amounts if he can afford it.

Think it was kroffe that mentioned that he placed several bets a day for years so would casino not think it was not normal to bet so much. Lol my bets are way smaller but I'd say i probably put at least 10 bets a day minimum every day and have done for many a year.

Even today I'm not actually gambling a lot but still placed about 15 bets on in play foreign football . Weekend and when there's proper football on I place loads more. Bet inplay it wins do more bets. Can end up doing about 7 bets on 1 game alone if first bet wins.

My first reaction was he's going to lose and doesn't have a hope in hell, but the fact they've allowed an appeal makes me wonder.

Law is very complicated, there might be something in the original judgement that could impact other businesses or contracts, so they want a better judgement which removes or tidies any loose ends.

 

[Casinos Hate Winners]

My first reaction was he's going to lose and doesn't have a hope in hell, but the fact they've allowed an appeal makes me wonder.

Law is very complicated, there might be something in the original judgement that could impact other businesses or contracts, so they want a better judgement which removes or tidies any loose ends.

If his income is tens of millions a year, there's nothing unusual about him losing 100k annually. I'm sure way more players lose a higher percentage of their annual income than he does. But nobody cares about them.

I mean losing 40k on a 100k income is way more serious than losing 100k on several million in income.