Date: November 19, 2024, 02:17h. 

Updated on: November 19, 2024, 02:17h.

A UK judge has ruled that Flutter Entertainment is not obligated to repay £1.48 million ($1.7 million) lost by a gambler at its Betfair betting exchange and did not owe a duty of care to prevent money loss.

Lee Gibson, a property developer, took legal action against Betfair in London’s High Court in September 2021 seeking compensation for losses mainly from soccer bets between November 1, 2009, and April 11, 2019.

Gibson argued that by 2012, the operator should have been aware that he was at risk of or suffering from gambling-related harms.

No Disclosure of Gambling Issues

However, in an 11-page ruling released on Friday, Judge Nigel Bird stated that Gibson never informed Betfair about his gambling issues. Instead, he reassured staff multiple times that he was comfortable with his gambling and could cover his losses, even claiming to be a multimillionaire.

There is no evidence that the financial information he provided to Betfair was incorrect … There was nothing concerning about the substantial losses. Although they were significant, they seemed sustainable.”

The plaintiff referenced the 2008 case of Calvert Vs. William Hill to argue that Betfair had a duty of care towards him. In that case, problem gambler Graham Calvert sued the bookmaker for allowing him to gamble after he had self-excluded.

The court found that William Hill had failed in its duty of care to Calvert but did not award him the £2 million he lost. This was because he continued to gamble with other operators while excluded from William Hill, indicating he would have encountered issues with another bookmaker, as determined by the judge.

Self-Inflicted Consequences

Bird explained that it was challenging to establish a duty of care in Gibson’s case since he did not self-exclude with Betfair.

“Under British law, individuals are not required to prevent harm caused by their own actions.

… If Mr Gibson had requested to be excluded from Betfair or imposed restrictions on his gambling, it is likely that Betfair would have complied.”

Bird also highlighted that gambling is not illegal in the UK, and therefore, Parliament did not intend for contracts to be voided due to gambling.

“A successful gambler should enjoy their winnings, but a losing gambler should not escape the consequences of their decisions,” he concluded.