The claimant sought recovery of his substantial winnings from the defendant gaming club. The club had resisted saying that the methods used by the claimant at cards, called, ‘edge sorting’ was a form of cheating, a criminal offence within the section, and that therefore no claim arose.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed (Sharp LJ dissenting) Dishonesty was not a necessary element of the section 42 offence. In civil proceedings, whether an action amounted to cheating was a question for the court. Though the judge had erred in basing his judgment on a so called civil concept of cheating, his assessment of the facts and the conclusion were correct.
Arden, Tomlinson , Sharp LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1093,  WLR(D) 569
Gambling Act 2005 42
England and Wales
Appeal from – Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) QBD 8-Oct-2014
The claimant, a professional gambler, sued the defendant casino for his winnings. The club replied that the claimant’s methods amounted to a form of cheating, and that no liability arose to pay the winnings.
Held: The claim failed. ‘The fact . .
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited – Baxter v Woodyard 1606
The courts awarded compensation for cheating in a game of cards where a person used a device to cause loss to the plaintiff, in this case a false card, called a ‘bumcard’ . .
Cited – Rex v Moore 1914
The court considered the offence of cheating . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Sjoland and Metzler CA 1912
The defendant was found guilty of cheating when winning a three card trick by the use of ‘sleight of hand’ . .
Appeal from – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.571227