In this landmark case, the Supreme Court provides guidance on how cheating within a betting and gaming context is to be assessed and makes fundamental changes on the wider legal definition of dishonesty.
Facts
Phil Ivey is a professional gambler and one of the world's pre-eminent poker players. Gentings Casinos UK Limited owns and operates a number of casinos including one based in Mayfair called the Crockford Club.
In August 2012, Ivey 'won' over £7.7 million playing Punto Banco, a variant of Baccarat at the Crockford Club. Unbeknownst to the casino, Mr Ivey, with the assistance of another gambler, had utilised a technique called edge-sorting which involves distinguishing between cards by examining irregularities on the backs of those cards.
Mr Ivey, feigning superstition, convinced the croupier to rotate a number of cards, allowing his accomplice, who was skilled in the art of edge-sorting, to identify cards of a certain value. This gave Mr Ivey a notable advantage over the house and contributed to him 'winning' the monies. Following a review of visual recordings of the game played, the casino became aware of Mr Ivey's actions. They refused to pay out the 'winnings' on the basis that Mr Ivey had cheated and that this breached an implied term within the contract that governed the play in question.
Mr Ivey accepted that he had engaged in edge-sorting but disputed that this amounted to cheating, stating instead that this was simply legitimate 'advantage play'. Mr Ivey's argument was rejected by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. However, whilst the Court of Appeal found that Mr Ivey had cheated, there was a lack of unanimity in the views expressed by the judges which led to a further appeal being launched in the Supreme Court...
To read the full article please click on the attachment below:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.