George Hilton comments on Ivey v Genting Casino Supreme Court case in New Law Journal
An honest cheat
A high-stakes gambler lost his appeal at the Supreme Court last week in a case that redefines the meaning of ‘dishonesty’.
Ivey, a professional gambler, sued Crockfords, a Mayfair casino, to recover his winnings at Punto Banco (a variant of Baccarat and not normally a game of skill). The casino refused to pay out because it believed Ivey cheated.
George Hilton, commercial fraud barrister at 2 Temple Gardens, who assisted on this case at first instance, said:
“The fascinating facts in this appeal could have formed the plot of an Oceans 11 style heist film.
The Supreme Court seized the opportunity to take a fatal pot shot at the criminal test for “dishonesty”, settling an age-old academic dispute by bringing the concept in line with the civil test commercial fraud lawyers usually apply.
The Supreme Court’s determination of the meaning of “cheating” under the Gambling Act 2005 serves a reminder to punters of the adage: the house always wins.”
Find the full article in New Law Journal here.