On 8 December 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair) [2025] EWCA Civ 1589, which sought to overturn the High Court’s judgement that gambling operators do not owe a duty of care to customers.
The implications of this appeal had the potential to be far-reaching, both for gambling providers and the wider public. As a result, this judgement was eagerly awaited.
Case background
The appeal was brought by Lee Gibson in respect of gambling losses incurred between 1 November 2009 and 11 April 2019. Mr Gibson lost £1,480,728.84 by gambling on the outcome of various sporting events on a betting exchange hosted by Betfair.
In seeking to recover his losses, Mr Gibson brought a claim against Betfair alleging negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract (including implied terms under the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)).
Mr Gibson’s position was that:
- Betfair knew, or ought to have known, that he was a problem gambler.
- By failing to take appropriate steps to protect him from incurring losses, Betfair breached its obligations set out in the LCCP.
- The breach of the LCCP gave rise to a personal right to take legal action in tort—meaning a civil wrongdoing—or in breach of contract, with Mr Gibson’s having a right to damages.
- Betfair was in breach of the terms of its licence and was operating unlawfully. Relying on section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005, the consequence of the breach was that each bet placed was void, as Mr Gibson argued each individual bet formed a separate contract.
In the High Court, His Honour Judge Bird dismissed Mr Gibson’s claim in full. The key findings of HHJ Bird were:
- It couldn’t be said that Betfair knew or should’ve known that Mr Gibson had a gambling problem at any time between 2009 and 2019. Mr Gibson kept his problem to himself, provided information to show that he could afford his gambling and misled Betfair about his gambling.
- Betfair was not under a regulatory (or other) obligation to implement ‘the very best or most efficient system to identify problem gamblers’. Instead, under the LCCP, Betfair was required to have appropriate policies in place. The Judge found that Betfair’s policies were appropriate and as a result, Betfair was not in breach of the LCCP.
- Each transaction did not create a new contract with Betfair. Instead, a singular contract is formed upon the opening of a gambling account.
- A term that Betfair would comply with the LCCP could not be implied into the contract formed.
- There was no actionable statutory duty for Mr Gibson to pursue. Also, Betfair did not owe a tortious duty of care to Mr Gibson. Even if a duty of care had been established, there was no causation as Mr Gibson would have continued gambling, to the same extent, elsewhere.
- The intention of section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 cannot have been intended to void contracts should there be a breach of the gambling provider’s licence. If this were to be the case, it would be contrary to public policy – both to deprive a successful gambler of their winnings and, equally, to allow an unsuccessful gambler to avoid their losses.
The appeal
Mr Gibson brought an appeal on five grounds. He sought to challenge the findings of HHJ Bird in respect of:
i) There being no breach of the licence conditions (i.e., whether Betfair knew, or ought to have known, Mr Gibson was a problem gambler)
(Ground 1)
ii) There being:
a) no duty of care owed to him;
b) no negligence by Betfair; and
c) an inability to establish causation.
(Grounds 2(a) – (c))
iii) Section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 not rendering contracts void, that were entered into in breach of the LCCP (Ground 3).
At the outset of his judgment, Sir Colin Birss C (the Judge) identified that Mr Gibson’s appeal rested on him succeeding on Ground 1.
Mr Gibson’s position on Ground 1 was that HHJ Bird had failed to take reasonable account of several facts found in his judgment. These related to the level of Mr Gibson’s gambling losses, the frequency of his bets, and his frustration when his account access was blocked for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) checks. Mr Gibson also maintained that through him providing details of his income and asset position during the AML checks, Betfair knew he could not afford his gambling.
After consideration of the evidence before HHJ Bird and his findings on Betfair’s knowledge (actual or constructive), it was held that HHJ Bird had ‘considered the relevant evidence, made no errors of principle in doing so and came to an entirely reasonable conclusion on that evidence’. In view of this, the finding that Betfair neither knew, or ought to have known, that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler was upheld and Ground 1 was dismissed.
Following this dismissal, no consideration was given to Grounds 2(a) – (c) by the Judge.
However, the Judge briefly considered Ground 3 (albeit expressly stated to be as an opinion by the Judge, rather than a legally binding decision). In considering Ground 3, the Judge agreed with the findings of HHJ Bird in the first instance. The Judge stated it would be a ‘very odd conclusion’ to render all gambling contracts void if the gambling provider is in breach of the LCCP. The Judge found that, if he was required to consider Ground 3, he would reject this ground.
What does this judgement mean for gambling providers?
This judgment will inevitably be a welcome result for gambling providers.
If Mr Gibson had been successful in his appeal, it’s highly likely the ‘floodgates’ would’ve opened for others to bring claims after sustaining losses through gambling. The consequences would’ve been significant, shifting the balance in favour of the individual gambler, rather than the provider.
This judgment provides clear guidance on the scope of the gambling provider’s obligations and duty of care (or lack thereof) to a problem gambler.
It’s also a stark reminder to gamblers that bringing a claim against your gambling provider doesn’t mean you can escape your losses.
How can we help?
For further information about issues raised in this article, please contact a member of our Commercial Disputes team.
