After the initial case was dismissed by the High Court of Justice, Lee Gibson's lawsuit against Betfair was submitted to the Court of Appeals, and the hearings began this week.
Gibson lost around £1.5m between 2009 and 2019 on Betfair, although he repeatedly told his VIP manager that he was comfortable with his betting levels and did not need to worry about the losses because he was a "multi-millionaire."
On the initial ruling, His Honour Judge Bird said: "The context of the argument is that his losses are not only purely economic losses, but they are caused by his own actions."
When the AML teams asked for sources of wealth, Gibson provided them with documents that made it appear that he was making more money from his landlord ventures than he was.
Although the team was still concerned, they reached out to the local land registry office and were assured that Gibson did own the properties in question and was renting them out.
Judge Bird continued: "There was therefore nothing objectively concerning about the level of losses. Although they were very large, they appeared to be sustainable."
Gibson claimed that Betfair deleted WhatsApp messages between them, but the courts found this to be untrue.
The courts also looked into his spending trends outside of Betfair. During this time, Gibson spent over £34,000 on luxury watches; he also deposited £502,000 with Betdaq, £20,000 with Sky Bet, £33,200 with William Hill and also hit £406,978 in losses under his friend's name.
Judge Bird reflected: "Mr Gibson was determined to gamble. If Betfair had stopped him gambling in 2015 or at any time I am quite satisfied that he would have gambled elsewhere and to the same extent.
"He would have remained a moderate problem gambler with large sums of money at his disposal and he would have continued to hide his problems.
"The best evidence of that is what he actually did when Betfair would no longer deal with him."
The case was initially closed on 14 November 2024, but Gibson filed for appeals and the case hearings began on the 8th October, 2025.
The outcome of this case could have significant potential ramifications for the industry and how courts handle disputes between customers and bookmakers.
Currently, Calvert v William Hill is one of the benchmarks of justice and was repeatedly referred to throughout this case.
However, if the Court of Appeals rules in Gibson's favour, then it's likely that this lawsuit would be followed by dozens of additional customers who also faced losses at bookmakers.
It also raises interesting questions about the level of duty expected in these situations.
The teams at Betfair repeatedly reached out to Gibson to ask if he was experiencing gambling harm, and even went as far as contacting local authorities to corroborate his claims.
Although witnesses explained that Betfair could have implemented better responsible gambling tools, as the industry begins to adopt the new Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), the courts argued that it is not Betfair's responsibility to keep up with this.
Judge Bird acknowledged that "Betfair was under no regulatory (or other) obligation to implement the very best or most efficient system to identify problem gamblers. Its obligation was to have appropriate policies in place. In my judgment it did that."
This case is very similar to the Calvert v William Hill case from 2008, when the courts threw out the £2.1m claim against the operator
