Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A property tycoon who lost almost £1.5 million on football bets has failed in an attempt to get his losses back after suing Betfair.
Buy-to-let giant Lee Gibson told a court he placed more than 30,000 individual bets through betting exchange Betfair during a “prolific” gambling period between 2009 and 2019.
Although he said he initially found it “exciting and exciting”, his losses became “unsustainable” and in March 2019, his account was locked.
47 year old mr gibson leedsHe sued Betfair, the world’s largest betting exchange, alleging that it should have known he was a “problem gambler” and that it had a duty to stop him as soon as possible.
But today, in keeping with the previous point judgeThree senior judges participated in the decision to dismiss his case court of Appeal Mr Gibson’s challenge was rejected, leaving him with no chance of compensation from Betfair.
Delivering judgment, the Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birrs, said Mr Gibson had “kept his gambling problem to himself” and given Betfair the impression he could afford his losses.
Even his VIP manager at Betfair described him as a “calm, composed and rational” gambler who was “enjoying” what he was doing, the judge said.
During an appeal hearing in October, the court heard that Mr Gibson had made himself a multi-millionaire by buying and renovating property in the Leeds area, despite leaving school at the age of 16.
At its peak, their portfolio included 16 houses which were rented to students, but some were later sold or mortgaged as losses mounted.
He began gambling using the Betfair exchange in 2009 – mostly on football and, although his account was credited several times, by the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000.
His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said his betting focused on tricky “correct score” football markets, sometimes in “obscure” games and in sums of up to £20,000.
His losses had grown to £500,000 by the end of 2015, £1m by January 2018 and almost £1.5m in March 2019 when Betfair suspended his account.
He was treated as a VIP client, offered incentives such as hospitality at football matches and golf invitations, although the incentives diminished over time.
When Mr Gibson was questioned under anti-money laundering rules about the source of his gambling funds, he told Betfair he was a landlord with a large portfolio of properties.
Betfair eventually dropped him as a customer in 2019, but he filed a lawsuit, claiming they “knew or should have known” about his problem and should have stopped him sooner.
His lawyers claimed that by treating him as a VIP client with a personal manager, the company also owed him a duty of care, which it failed to fulfill.
He claimed compensation for the money he lost gambling over six years, totaling almost £1million, before filing his court claim in 2021.
At the end of the case hearing last year, Judge Nigel Bird said he was not convinced that Betfair should have known about his gambling problem, given that they themselves had tried to hide it.
“Mr Gibson consistently and frequently reassured Betfair that he was able to finance his gambling, including his losses, and any information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” he said.
“At least according to the information he provided to Betfair, he was able to finance his gambling, he misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not honest.
“In my view, Mr Gibson not only failed to share information about his gambling problem, he also actively took steps to conceal it and present a completely false picture to the world at large, and to Betfair in particular.”
But in the Court of Appeal, Mr Kulkarni argued that the judge was mistaken in his findings about Betfair’s knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem.
He said, “The judge should have found that Betfair knew or should have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler at the material time of the claim and that his finding otherwise was clearly wrong.”
He added, “Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years before 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day.”
“The judge should have found that, where a person gambles openly despite suffering huge losses, using the money which appears to be at least partly derived from selling his business assets or borrowing money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler.”
“The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had access to information that suggested Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold some to gamble, and was gambling beyond the level he could afford from his income after tax and expenses.”
Today, returning to court to dismiss his case, Sir Colin, Lord Justice Popwell and Sir Julian Flax said the lower judge had made the right decision to dismiss Mr Gibson’s claim. In his judgment, with which the other two judges agreed, Sir Colin said that 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 credible and impressive witness and whom the judge dismissed various charges against him, described how Mr Gibson presented himself to him,” he said.
“Mr Rourke said that Mr Gibson was a man who always gave the clear appearance of enjoying his gambling and who never mentioned anything remotely related to it. Mr Rourke also said that Mr Gibson was calm, composed and rational.
“The second difficulty identified by the judge was that Mr Gibson – at least according to the information given to Betfair – could raise money for his gambling.”
“The conclusion that Mr Gibson – at least on the basis of the information given to Betfair – was able to finance his gambling was not only open to the judge, but in my judgment it was the correct conclusion.”
Standing back, the judge considered the relevant evidence, made no principled error in doing so and reached an entirely reasonable conclusion on that evidence.
“I see no justification for allowing an appeal against the finding that Betfair neither knew nor should have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler.”
The appeal was dismissed, meaning Mr Gibson’s damages claim failed.