A property tycoon who lost nearly £1.5m on football wagers has failed in a bid to get his loses back after suing Betfair.
Buy-to-let giant Lee Gibson told a court he placed more than 30,000 individual wagers through betting exchange Betfair during a “prolific” gambling period between 2009 and 2019.
Although he said he initially found it “enthralling and exciting,” his losses became “unsustainable” and in March 2019, his account was locked.
Mr Gibson, 47, of Leeds, went on to sue Betfair, the world’s largest betting exchange, alleging that it should have known he was a “problem gambler” and was under a duty to stop him sooner.
But today, upholding a previous judge’s decision rejecting his case, three senior judges at the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Gibson’s challenge, denying him any chance of compensation from Betfair.
Giving judgment, High Court Chancellor, Sir Colin Birrs, said Mr Gibson had “kept his gambling problem to himself” and gave every impression to Betfair that he could afford his losses.
Even his VIP manager at Betfair described him as a “calm, level-headed and rational” gambler, who seemed to “enjoy” what he was doing, said the judge.
During the hearing of the appeal in October, the court heard Mr Gibson, despite leaving school at 16, had made himself a multi-millionaire by buying and renovating properties in the Leeds area.
At its highest, his portfolio included 16 houses, which were rented to students, but some were later sold or remortgaged as his losses piled up.
He had begun gambling – mostly on football – using the Betfair exchange in 2009 and, although his account was at times in credit, by the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000.
His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said his betting was focused on the tricky “correct score” football markets, sometimes in “obscure” games and in sums up to £20,000.
His losses had grown to £500,000 by the end of 2015, £1m by January 2018 and, in March 2019 when Betfair suspended his account, stood at almost £1.5m.
He was treated as a VIP customer, being offered incentives such as hospitality at football matches and golf invitations, although the incentives decreased over time.
When quizzed under anti-money laundering rules about the source of his gambling funds, Mr Gibson explained to Betfair that he was a landlord with a substantial portfolio of properties.
Betfair eventually dropped him as a client in 2019, but he went on to sue, claiming they “knew or ought to have known” about his problem and should have stopped him sooner.
By treating him as a VIP client with an individual manager, the company had also assumed a responsibility to look after him, which it had failed to meet, his lawyers claimed.
He claimed in damages the amounts he lost while gambling in the six years prior to filing his court claim in 2021, totalling around £1million.
At the end of the trial of the case last year, Judge Nigel Bird said he was not convinced that Betfair should have known about his gambling problem, given that he had tried to hide it himself.
“Mr Gibson consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses, and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” he said.
“He could, at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair, afford to fund his gambling, he misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not being honest.
“In my view, Mr Gibson did not simply fail to share information about his gambling problem, he took steps actively to hide it and to portray to the world at large, and to Betfair in particular, a wholly inaccurate picture.”
But at the Court of Appeal, Mr Kulkarni argued that the judge had been wrong in his finding about Betfair’s knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem.
“The judge ought to have found that Betfair knew or ought to have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler throughout the material time of the claim and his finding otherwise was plainly wrong,” he said.
“Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day,” he continued.
“The judge ought to have gone on to find that, where a person appears likely to be gambling prolifically despite facing heavy losses, using money which appears likely to be at least in part from selling his business assets or loaning money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler.”
“The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had information available to them showing that Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold something to gamble, and was gambling at a level beyond that which he could afford from his income after tax and expenses.”
Today, returning to court to dismiss his case, Sir Colin, Lord Justice Popplewell and Sir Julian Flaux said the lower judge had been right to reject Mr Gibson’s claim. In his ruling, which the other two judges agreed with, Sir Colin said the first difficulty with Mr Gibson’s case was that Judge Bird found that he had “kept his gambling problem to himself,” a conclusion “amply supported by the evidence.”
“For example, Mr Rourke, who was Mr Gibson’s VIP manager at Betfair, and whom the judge found to be a reliable and impressive witness and of whom the judge rejected various allegations made against him, described how Mr Gibson presented himself to him,” he said.
“Mr Rourke said Mr Gibson was someone who always gave the clear impression of enjoying his gambling and who never mentioned anything remotely concerning. Mr Rourke also said that Mr Gibson was calm, level-headed and rational.
“The second difficulty identified by the judge was that Mr Gibson could – at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair – afford to fund his gambling.”
“The finding that Mr Gibson could – at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair – afford to fund his gambling was not only open to the judge but was in my judgment the right conclusion.”
Standing back, the judge considered the relevant evidence, made no errors of principle in doing so and came to an entirely reasonable conclusion on that evidence.
“I can see no justification for allowing the appeal against the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor ought to have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler.”
The appeal was dismissed, meaning Mr Gibson’s damages claim failed.
