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 that the claimant is genuinely convinced that he is not a cheat and even that that opinion commands considerable support from others, – see for example, Dr. Jacobson, – is not determinative of the question.’ and ‘It is immaterial that the casino could have protected itself against it by simple measures. The casino can protect itself by simple measures against cheating or legitimate advantage play. The fact that it can do so does not determine which it is.’ The claimant was truthful when he said that he did not consider what he did to be cheating; therefore dishonesty and in particular the second leg of the test established by R v Ghosh had not been demonstrated. However, his play on this occasion amounted in law to cheating. This meant he had breached the terms on which Crockfords agreed to allow him to play:
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 3394 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 504
Links:
Statutes:
Gaming Act 1845 17, Gaming Act 2005 42
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash CA 19-Nov-2010
It is ultimately for the court to decide, as it must in the case of the standard of honesty to be expected in dealing of businessmen and trustees, whether or not conduct amounts to cheating. The standard is objective.
Leveson LJ identified the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) CA 4-Nov-2016
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 . .
At First Instance – 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.
Contract, Torts – Other
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.538709