Published on: October 9, 2025, 05:01h.
Updated on: October 9, 2025, 05:01h.
- High Court rejected Gibson’s £1.5M case against Betfair.
- Appeal alleges Betfair ignored signs of gambling addiction.
- This case could reshape betting companies’ duty of care standards.
A British real estate mogul who faced defeat in his initial attempt to sue Betfair for a £1.5 million loss has escalated the matter to the appeals court.
Lee Gibson, a 47-year-old from Leeds, UK, lost this money while placing over 30,000 soccer bets on Betfair’s platform from 2009 to 2019, until his account was eventually suspended. He initiated his lawsuit against Betfair in September 2021 in the London Circuit Commercial Court, arguing that the company should have recognized his gambling addiction and taken action.
‘No Legal Duty of Care’
This claim was dismissed in November 2024 by High Court Judge Nigel Bird, who noted that Gibson never disclosed any gambling issues to Betfair.
In fact, he consistently assured company representatives that he was managing his betting effectively and could handle his losses, emphasizing his status as a multimillionaire.
The judge noted that there was no substantial evidence indicating that the financial data Gibson provided was misleading. Despite the size of his losses, they appeared to be manageable based on the financial context.
Bird also concluded that Betfair held no responsibility towards Gibson since he didn’t enter into a self-exclusion scheme or request any gambling restrictions.
“A successful gambler should not be deprived of their winnings, yet a losing gambler should also bear the consequences of their own choices,” he stated.
Lawyer Claims Judge Was ‘Mistaken’
However, in the Court of Appeal’s opening remarks, Gibson’s attorney, Yash Kulkarni KC, argued that the previous judge’s decision was incorrect and emphasized that Betfair was aware of his client’s gambling patterns.
“The judge should have recognized that Betfair knew or should have known about Mr. Gibson’s potential gambling issues during the relevant period, and any contrary finding was clearly erroneous,” he argued.
“Mr. Gibson placed over 20,000 bets in the six years leading to January 22, 2021, averaging more than five bets daily,” he continued.
The judge should have concluded that a person who is gambling extensively despite significant losses, using funds potentially linked to sold business assets or loans, is likely to be a problem gambler,” he stated.
This case is being closely monitored as it may establish clearer guidelines regarding betting firms’ legal responsibilities to identify and protect individuals with gambling issues, especially among high-value clientele.