Lee Gibson, 47, is appealing a High Court ruling that rejected his £1 million damages claim against Betfair after he lost £1.5 million gambling between 2009 and 2019
A multimillionaire who blew nearly £1.5m on football wagers is attempting to overturn a ruling after suing Betfair for allowing him to gamble – in a landmark case that could change the rules on what duties online betting companies owe to gamblers.
Lee Gibson, 47, claims the betting giant should have stopped him sooner as it allegedly knew he was a “problem gambler”. The buy-to-let property tycoon told the Court of Appeal he placed more than 30,000 bets through Betfair between 2009 and 2019.
He is claiming £1 million in damages – roughly the amount he lost in the six years before filing his claim in 2021. His case was rejected by a High Court judge last year, but this week it returned to court before three top judges.
READ MORE: ‘Lovely’ dad won £9million on lottery but five years later it ‘killed him’READ MORE: Paddington takes legal action as Spitting Image depicts bear as cocaine-loving podcaster
A court heard that despite leaving school at 16, Mr Gibson became a multi-millionaire by buying and renovating homes in the Leeds area. At one point, he owned 16 houses, which were rented to students.
His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said Mr Gibson’s betting focused on “correct score” football markets – sometimes in “obscure” games – and in sums up to £20,000. He argued the judge should have found that Betfair “knew or ought to have known” that Mr Gibson was a “problem gambler”. He added that because the company treated him as a VIP client with an individual “relationship manager”, it had taken on a responsibility to look after him.
“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,” Mr Kulkarni told the court.
What Mr Gibson at first found “enthralling and exciting” came crashing down in March 2019 when his losses became “unsustainable” and his account was suspended. He began gambling on Betfair’s exchange in 2009. By the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000, climbing to £500,000 by the end of 2015, £1m by January 2018 and £1.5m in March 2019.
As a VIP, he was allegedly offered perks including football hospitality and golf invitations, though these tailed off over time. When Betfair asked about the source of his gambling funds under anti-money laundering rules, he said he was a landlord with multiple properties.
At the end of the High Court trial last year, Judge Nigel Bird ruled Betfair could not reasonably have known Mr Gibson was a problem gambler. “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. “The fact that he consistently satisfied anti-money laundering checks makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns.”
Judge Bird continued: “Indeed, even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling. 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 was “wrong” in his findings. He said: “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. 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.”
“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,” he said.
Mr Kulkarni also challenged the judge’s finding regarding the VIP relationship manager, arguing their role “was to interact with him to maintain or increase his betting” and “exploited his betting habits to extend bonuses and offers likely to induce further betting”. He added: “Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler.”
Betfair – listed in the claim as TSE Malta LP – is opposing the appeal before three High Court Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Birss. Its lawyers argue that Judge Bird’s ruling was correct and have urged the Court of Appeal to uphold it.
The court is expected to reserve its judgement for a later date.
