A Leeds-based millionaire who lost 1.5 million pounds betting on football is fighting to reclaim the money in a case that could reshape how gambling firms handle high-spending customers.
Lee Gibson, a 47-year-old property investor in the United Kingdom, is challenging Betfair, alleging the company should have recognized he was a problem gambler and acted sooner to prevent his financial collapse. The case, which began after his account was shut down in 2019, has reached the Court of Appeal following an earlier High Court defeat, according to The Independent.
Property mogul’s decade-long betting spree
Between 2009 and 2019, Gibson placed over 30,000 bets on Betfair’s exchange platform, focusing heavily on “correct score” football markets — including obscure matches — and sometimes wagering as much as £20,000 on a single outcome. His enthusiasm for betting, he said, started as “enthralling and exciting” but spiraled into “unsustainable” losses over time.
Despite leaving school at 16, Gibson built a successful property business in Leeds, owning up to 16 rental properties at his peak. But as his gambling intensified, he began remortgaging and selling assets to fund his wagers. By the end of 2012, he had lost £100,000; by 2015, £500,000; and by early 2018, his losses reached £1 million. When Betfair closed his account in March 2019, he was down nearly £1.5 million.
As a frequent high-stakes bettor, Gibson was treated as a VIP client, receiving perks such as football hospitality events and golf outings. However, these incentives reportedly diminished over time. When questioned under anti-money laundering rules about the source of his betting funds, Gibson said he was a landlord with substantial assets.
The High Court’s rejection and the appeal
In his 2021 lawsuit, Gibson sought about £1 million in damages — representing his losses during the six years leading up to the claim — arguing Betfair should have recognized the warning signs of problem gambling and intervened.
But in November 2024, High Court Judge Nigel Bird dismissed the claim, concluding that Betfair could not reasonably have known Gibson was suffering from a gambling problem. The judge emphasized that Gibson had consistently assured Betfair he could afford his losses and had passed all anti-money laundering checks.
“Mr Gibson consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses, and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” Judge Bird said. “He misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not being honest.”
The judge further noted that Gibson had actively concealed the extent of his problem, portraying to both Betfair and others a “wholly inaccurate picture” of his financial position.
Appeal focuses on duty of care
Now before the Court of Appeal, Gibson’s legal team argues that Betfair breached its duty of care by failing to act on clear signs of problematic behavior. His barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, said the company “knew or ought to have known” about Gibson’s excessive gambling, given his frequency of bets, mounting losses, and the apparent sale or mortgaging of assets to fund his habits.
“The judge ought to have found that Betfair knew or ought to have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a problem gambler throughout the material time of the claim and his finding otherwise was plainly wrong,” Kulkarni told the court.
He added that because Betfair had assigned Gibson a personal VIP “relationship manager,” the company assumed a duty to protect him from harm. “Betfair assumed a responsibility to take reasonable care that its facilitation of his gambling did not cause him financial harm by reason of his being a problem gambler,” Kulkarni argued.
He further contended that Betfair had violated the minimum requirements of its operating license, which obliged it to “refuse service to a customer who appeared likely, on the basis of all relevant sources of information, to be a problem gambler.”
Betfair defends its conduct
Betfair — listed in the case as TSE Malta LP — disputes these claims and has urged the Court of Appeal to uphold the earlier ruling. Representing the company, Jonathan Davies-Jones KC said Betfair followed all necessary “policies and procedures” under its licensing obligations.
He argued there was no evidence that Betfair had actual or constructive knowledge of Gibson’s gambling disorder, noting that the businessman repeatedly presented himself as a wealthy, self-controlled individual. “On the facts, the judge was right – and clearly entitled – to conclude that Betfair had neither actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s moderate gambling disorder and/or Mr Gibson’s ‘gambling problem,’” Davies-Jones said.
He added that even if Betfair had recognized a problem, it would not have created a legal duty to stop Gibson from losing money, emphasizing that Gibson would likely have continued gambling elsewhere.
Legal experts say the outcome could have major implications for the online betting industry, defining whether gambling firms owe high-value customers a legal duty of care to prevent excessive losses. A decision from the Court of Appeal, presided over by Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell, and Lord Justice Birss, is expected in the coming months.
