Real Estate Investor, Gambling Addict Sues Betfair to Try to Recover £1.5m in Losses

  • The original case led to High Court Judge Nigel Bird siding with Betfair
  • Gibson’s legal team appealed the decision, and the case will be heard this week
  • Betfair maintains that it wasn’t aware of Gibson’s betting addiction
Betfair logo on phone
A real estate investor is suing Betfair in the UK for letting him gamble away £1.5m ($2m) despite his gambling addiction. [Image: Shutterstock.com]

A serious issue

A real estate businessman who lost almost £1.5m ($2m) gambling on soccer with Betfair is suing the Flutter-owned company to try to recoup his losses. Lee Gibson claims that the betting exchange operator didn’t stop him from gambling even though he displayed problematic behavior, including placing over 30,000 wagers in a decade-long spree up until 2019.

concluded that Betfair shouldn’t necessarily have known about the extent of his gambling problem

The original case failed last year after High Court Judge Nigel Bird concluded that Betfair shouldn’t necessarily have known about the extent of his gambling problem, as Gibson “consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling” with relevant documentation.

No luck the first time around

The matter is now back in the spotlight as it will be heard in the Court of Appeal this week. While similar cases from gamblers trying to recoup losses have been unsuccessful, legal experts have said that a positive outcome for Gibson could have major consequences for the online betting industry.

The 47-year-old’s legal team claims that as a VIP customer, Betfair was acutely aware of his excessive wagering and that it had a duty to protect him after assigning a “relationship manager” to his account. The operator only suspended his account in March 2019 after he had accumulated £1.5m ($2m) in losses.

Opposing sides

Gibson’s lawyer, Yash Kulkarni KC, pointed out several ways the judge in the original case was wrong, including failing to find that a minimum licensing requirement is to refuse service to someone who appears to be a problem gambler.

Betfair maintains that the original decision was correct. Jonathan Davies-Jones KC told the appeals judges that the company had zero knowledge about the betting problems. He went on to say that even if Betfair had been aware of the issues, this isn’t sufficient cause to pursue to a duty of care case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *