Published on: December 9, 2025, 06:07h.
Updated on: December 9, 2025, 06:07h.
- Real estate mogul’s appeal to recover significant Betfair losses rejected.
- Court confirms Betfair’s non-liability despite substantial betting activity.
- Evidence indicated gambler disguised issues and claimed he was financially stable.
An English property mogul, who lost £1.5 million (approximately US$2 million) wagering on soccer through Betfair, has been denied his attempt to recover the lost funds by London’s Court of Appeal.
Self-made millionaire Lee Gibson, hailing from Leeds, England, accumulated losses by placing over 30,000 soccer bets on Betfair between 2009 and 2019, until his account was suspended.
Gibson initiated legal action against the operator in September 2021 in London’s Circuit Commercial Court, contending that Betfair should have recognized his gambling addiction and intervened.
The High Court, under Judge Nigel Bird, dismissed the case in November 2024, noting, “A successful gambler should retain the rewards of their bets; similarly, a losing gambler should face the repercussions of their choices.”
Judge Bird emphasized that Gibson never claimed to Betfair that he had a gambling issue nor sought self-exclusion.
Conversely, he consistently communicated to staff that he was managing his gambling well and could afford the losses due to his millionaire status.
Warning Signs
During the appeals process, Gibson’s attorney, Yash Kulkarni KC, contended that the vast number of bets his client placed should have raised signals for Betfair.
“Mr. Gibson placed no less than 20,000 bets in the six years leading up to January 22, 2021, averaging over five per day,” Kulkarni stated.
The judge should have recognized that an individual who is gambling excessively despite substantial losses, potentially using funds from the sale of business assets or taking loans, is likely facing gambling problems,” Kulkarni argued.
Kulkarni maintained that the evidence indicated Betfair either recognized or should have recognized Gibson’s pattern of loss-chasing and borrowing money for gambling, exceeding his post-tax financial capacity.
‘Seemed Composed’
However, the appellate panel of three judges concluded that the overwhelming evidence indicated that Gibson had effectively “kept his gambling struggles private.”
They remarked that Gibson was perceived as “calm, rational” and “appeared to take pleasure in betting,” as per the Betfair VIP manager’s testimony.
He also consistently insisted he could handle his losses when questioned about his finances by Betfair employees.
The court ultimately dismissed the case.