Court Rejects Property Tycoon’s $2M Appeal Against Betfair

Lee Gibson, a property magnate who incurred GBP 1.5 million (about $2 million) in sports-betting losses, sued Betfair on the grounds that the company should have recognized he was a problem gambler. However, the Court of Appeal has now dismissed his case.

Gibson Loses Case Against Betfair

Gibson accumulated his losses over a decade of sports betting, mainly on soccer, between 2009 and 2019, before Betfair suspended his account. He then sought to recover most of those losses, specifically those incurred in the six years preceding his claim, arguing that Betfair should have intervened to stop him from gambling. 

In October 2025, Gibson filed a lawsuit against Betfair, arguing that the gambling giant should have done more to stop him from spiraling into addiction. He maintained that he was a problem gambler and that Betfair either knew or should reasonably have known this. He alleged that the company breached its licence obligations by failing to take adequate steps to protect him from further losses. 

Gibson appealed on five grounds, but the Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birss, together with Lord Justice Popplewell and Sir Julian Flaux, concluded that the case ultimately turned on whether Betfair had breached its license conditions, and found no such breach.

What Did the Judge Say?

Judge Nigel Bird, who presided over the original case, ruled Gibson had often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling and including the incurred losses. The judge also stated that none of the information Gibson provided to Betfair suggested otherwise.

In the ruling, the court upheld the decision made by Judge Nigel Bird in the case involving Mr. Gibson and Betfair. The judgment confirmed that Judge Bird had carefully reviewed the relevant evidence, finding no errors in his reasoning and concluding that his decision was entirely justified.

The court emphasized that there was no ground to support an appeal against the finding that Betfair neither knew nor should have known that Gibson was a problem gambler. Furthermore, the ruling reinforced the view that Betfair had acted appropriately based on the information available to them at the time.

The decision was seen as a crucial test case because, had Gibson prevailed, there could have been the potential to pave the way for other gamblers seeking to recover their losses.