High Court sides with Flutter in £1.5m problem gambling case

By Lucy Wynne

The case against Flutter-owned Betfair, was heard in London’s Royal Courts of Justice between 1 July to 12 July.

Following a three-year legal battle, dating back to 2021, the UK’s High Court has ruled in favour of Flutter Entertainment within their £1.5m problem gambling case.

The case was opened after a property developer, Lee Gibson, sued Betfair and its TSE Malta holding company for £1.48m in losses - between the dates of 2009 and 2019 - after alleging that proper problem gambling safeguards were not in place. However, it turns out that Gibson never notified Betfair of any gambling problems, nor did he seek any advice, or use any safer gambling features offered by the brand.

Additionally, Gibson stated that members of staff at Betfair advised him to dodge safer gambling protocols. But Flutter provided evidence of Gibson, assuring that he could afford his gambling habits and even suggested that he was particularly wealthy.

Therefore, on Friday 15 November 2024, Gibson’s claims were officially dismissed by the High Court after it was cleared that Betfair neither owed a duty of care to its players nor did they violate any of the Gambling Commission’s code of conduct.

The 46-page judgement clarified that Betfair didn’t owe Gibson a duty of care, based on the following statement said by the Courts: 

“[By law] a person does not owe a common law duty of care to prevent others suffering harm as a result of their own acts.” 

This is the biggest problem gambling court case since 2008’s ‘Calvert vs William Hill’ which saw Greyhound trainer, Graham Calvert, attempt to sue William Hill for £2.1m after they failed to oblige by their own self-exclusion policy. Calvert closed his account to never open it again, but he was able to start betting again within just two weeks. 

Calvert made it clear to the operator that he was trying to stop gambling and was discouraging himself by closing his accounts and therefore, William Hill failed to live up to their duty of care; unlike this case.