![]() ![]() The Supreme Court held that Ivey had cheated, and was thus not entitled to the payment sought from Genting Casinos. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's ruling 2–1. ![]() Ivey's lawyers argued that the appropriate test for whether cheating occurred was the same for contract as it was in section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, and that cheating necessitated dishonesty, which had not been shown.Īt trial, High Court Judge John Mitting held that cheating had occurred and the contract was thus invalid. Ivey sued the casino to recover his winnings.īoth Ivey and the casino agreed that the contract contained an implied term forbidding cheating. The casino did not pay out the £7.7m he had won, as they believed Ivey had cheated by using edge sorting. Phil Ivey, an American professional poker player, played and won a series of games of Punto Banco-a variant of baccarat-at Crockfords Casino in London, owned by Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords UKSC 67 is a UK Supreme Court case that reconsidered the test used for determining dishonesty. Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |