✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Ivey v Genting Casinos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org · 1,415 words · saved by 1 readers

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 is a UK Supreme Court case that reconsidered the test used for determining dishonesty.[1] 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. The casino did not pay out the £7.7m he had won, as they believed Ivey had cheated by using edge sorting. Ivey sued the casino to recover his winnings. Both Ivey and the casino agreed that the contract contained an implied term forbidding cheating. 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. At trial, High Court Judge John Mitting held that cheating had occurred and the contract was thus invalid. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's ruling 2–1. The Supreme Court held th

Ivey v Genting Casinos - Wikipedia Jump to content From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia UK legal case on dishonesty and gambling Ivey v Genting Casinos Court Supreme Court Full case name Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords Decided 25 October 2017 Citation [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391, [2017] 3 WLR 1212, [2018] 2 All ER 406, [2018] 1 Cr App R 12 Cases cited R v Ghosh Court membership Judges sitting Lord Neuberger , Lady Hale , Lord Kerr , Lord Hughes , Lord Thomas Keywords casinos, cheating at gambling, dishonesty, gambling, gambling contracts, implied terms Ivey v Genting Casinos

Explore this link on the map →

related reading