Gambler who lost £4million sues

JACKDAW · January 2022

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10453669/Gambler-lost-4million-sues-Mayfair-casino-Aspinalls-didnt-force-stop-rest.html

Who do i get in touch with about my 55p micro stake ( this could get messy) lol

Tikay10 · January 2022

@JACKDAW

Ha, excellent.

Same thing though, it's all relative, eh?

JACKDAW · January 2022

you were quick on that one mate, wife and i were taking bets who would reply first, MISTY and MUMSIE were top of the list

Tikay10 · January 2022

JACKDAW said:
you were quick on that one mate, wife and i were taking bets who would reply first, MISTY and MUMSIE were top of the list

@MISTY4ME will be along at about 2am. Cornwall lad, keeps funny hours.

Doubleme · January 2022

I am 1000% on the side of the casino on this one. In fact I would go so far as to say that if the casino was local to me which it is not, and there was a protest against the casino I would join the counter protest even if that was just by myself.

he did not lose his entire networth or even a significant proportion of his networth.

Although really I would question the intelligence of gambling 10% of your networth. I suppose it makes a lot of sense if you truly believe that in the event of you losing you can successfully sue the casino and get back all the money you lost.

Heck if I can gamble my entire networth away and then sue a casino for all it back then surely that makes sense as it is just a free roll Might as well put it all on black if I win I double up if I lose I get my stake back anyway.

Of course I would not do this because 1. I have morals and I would view this as a scummy thing to do. 2. I do not believe that I would actually get back all the money in the likely event of me busting.

There is too much emphasis on blaming casinos or gambling companies, people need to take responsibility for their own actions rather then assuming they bear no fault at all and its entirely someone else's fault.

If this guy wins his case then it would become legal precedent and then all of us would no longer be able to make any reasonable profit at all because the sites would not be able to let us play because we could sue them if we lost.

MISTY4ME · January 2022

Tikay10 said:

JACKDAW said:
you were quick on that one mate, wife and i were taking bets who would reply first, MISTY and MUMSIE were top of the list
@MISTY4ME will be along at about 2am. Cornwall lad, keeps funny hours.

Hi guys.............Studying FORM ....... and True-to-FORM I'm here

Serves him right ..........no doubt he will have been betting against a run/sequence

TheEdge949 · January 2022

Help please I'm a vulnerable multimillionaire who gets greedy and has control issues.

Makes me want to puke.

It's like me saying I'm going to sue the alcohol industry for my 5 year addiction problems.

Just accept responsibility for your own actions and deal with it instead of searching to move the burden of responsibility elsewhere so you can feel better about yourself.

misterpj · January 2022

monies
to respect the stuff
in my experience,life with more than you know what to do with & life without knowing where your next loaf o bread coming from.
Not thankfully quite known the latter, defo the former.
(eyes on others watched agog 1st hand, casinos,dog tracks,racing and,in life, sad to see on occasions, multiple, various, very wealthy and otherwise)
Rich in Life is;
Relative Happiness, Relative Contentment, that's wealthy
not a bank balance.
As that clever advert sings.
Earn monies,doing something you love, you never 'work' a day in your life.
deep, but accurate, implore that in the young ones.

JACKDAW · January 2022

**** that’s exactly what I was thinking of typing

misterpj · January 2022

Jackdaw, great minds champ 👍👍👍

Essexphil · January 2022

The media do seem to go a bit weird on this sort of thing.

I remember a big story about Wayne Rooney dropping £50k at a casino a while ago. I suppose "man loses 3 days' wages in casino" wouldn't get as many views

10% of total wealth is a lot to gamble. And this man seems to have a history of problem gambling in that casino. In the 1980s for a casino to do this? Fine. Now? Not so much.

Before anyone makes moral judgments, I think that Casino is going to need a lot of evidence for them to be able to keep all of that money...

TVSpice · January 2022

This happened in 2015. For either side to be able to prove absolutely what happened will be very difficult unless the casino, expecting some sort of situation, kept all the CCTV recordings that can prove rest breaks and 'time out' conversations, especially prior to the granting of the £2million extension of credit.

I don't know the game but I'm guessing this person notified the casino in advance of his intention to play and play for a large sums. He probably requested that the casino had a number of experienced dealers available for a long time. These details may well have been in writing (expectations of time to be spent at the casino, amount of money to be gambled to ensure the casino had the money covered in house) etc These communications may well count against the player.

On the players side, asking for and receiving a further £2million line of credit suggests an element of reckless behaviour by both parties. Surely, at the very least the casino should have mandated a minimum of 24 hour delay before extending that credit given that he had already lost nearly that amount. Having not ever been in such a situation, is this something casinos can insist upon, even if the customer equally insists that they wish to continue?

The potential legal costs (and reputational costs) are going to be high for both so I'm guessing a reasonable settlement will be proposed by the casino (probably the £2million) but the guy will likely have stepped into his last casino in the western world.

TheEdge949 · January 2022

Where though does the burden of responsibility stop. If there are clear guidelines laid down in law then everybody should know where they stand.

However it still isn't clear is it.

Let's look at the licensing laws. One of them states quite clearly that it is illegal for a person to serve somebody who is already intoxicated, however the law has no definition of intoxication except for driving a vehicle.

Two things become immediately obvious here, firstly there would be hardly any night time industry after say 9pm and secondly its a subjective matter. Somebody like me who is a 23 stone ex alcoholic will have a much larger capacity for consumption than a 12 stone person who drinks occasionally.

Also I feel that we are in danger of abdicating our personal responsibilities by creating vicarious liability where really none exists.

For example if I get behind the wheel after six pints and cause injury and death is that my fault or the fault of the bartender who served me and thus affected my judgement as to whether getting behind the wheel was a sensible thing to do.

No reasonable person would argue that, that theory holds water and yet it's the same theory that the court is being asked to consider in this case.

Essexphil · January 2022

TheEdge949 said:
Where though does the burden of responsibility stop. If there are clear guidelines laid down in law then everybody should know where they stand.

However it still isn't clear is it.

Let's look at the licensing laws. One of them states quite clearly that it is illegal for a person to serve somebody who is already intoxicated, however the law has no definition of intoxication except for driving a vehicle.

Two things become immediately obvious here, firstly there would be hardly any night time industry after say 9pm and secondly its a subjective matter. Somebody like me who is a 23 stone ex alcoholic will have a much larger capacity for consumption than a 12 stone person who drinks occasionally.

Also I feel that we are in danger of abdicating our personal responsibilities by creating vicarious liability where really none exists.

For example if I get behind the wheel after six pints and cause injury and death is that my fault or the fault of the bartender who served me and thus affected my judgement as to whether getting behind the wheel was a sensible thing to do.

No reasonable person would argue that, that theory holds water and yet it's the same theory that the court is being asked to consider in this case.

It is interesting. To me, at least.

30 years ago, this was all viewed as simple. The punter's fault.

Now? Rather different. The Casino has a duty to identify problem gamblers, and to take appropriate steps in relation to protecting them and their families.

It can sometimes be difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of the wealthy. But a lot of it just boils down to numbers. For us all. So-I will try and make Rooney's £50k in 1 day, and this guy's £4mill loss into more relatable figures.

Suppose a person entering the casino is Joe Average. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he earns £400 per week. And has assets (mainly his house, but some savings/pension/whatever) of £250,000.

If he loses half his week's wages (as a 1-off), no duty on the Casino. But 10% of his net worth? That is £25k.

Then the previous actions at the casino. Writing cheques to cover losses was really common. In about 1990. Someone using this method in (say) 2010? That casino should have loud warning klaxons in its ears.

It is not, to use your analogy, that the guy doing the driving is blameless. It is the case that pub have allowed him to do this lots of times. That have had previous, less serious incidents. And had been warned to take his keys. And pubs do get fined by the licensing authorities for this. And some have their licence to sell alcohol revoked.

And no-one argues these days that there is not a point where the publican becomes liable, as well as the driver. The key issue is whether that point had been reached.

tai-gar · January 2022

No doubt if the Casino had stopped him when he asked for another £2m credit he would have argued that they did not give him fair opportunity to win back his previous losses.

There is no winner here. Except of course for the Legal Teams.

TVSpice · January 2022

tai-gar said:
No doubt if the Casino had stopped him when he asked for another £2m credit he would have argued that they did not give him fair opportunity to win back his previous losses.

There is no winner here. Except of course for the Legal Teams.

Agreed but that is why I wondered if there should be a mandatory 24 hour ‘cooling off’ period before the second line of credit was extended? However, I don’t know if this is also legally possible (said punter might argue he is leaving town the following day etc). But if it is clearly stated in the casino rules, only one line of credit per 24 hours, then everyone knows where they stand.

TVSpice · January 2022

Essexphil said:

TheEdge949 said:
Where though does the burden of responsibility stop. If there are clear guidelines laid down in law then everybody should know where they stand.

However it still isn't clear is it.

Let's look at the licensing laws. One of them states quite clearly that it is illegal for a person to serve somebody who is already intoxicated, however the law has no definition of intoxication except for driving a vehicle.

Two things become immediately obvious here, firstly there would be hardly any night time industry after say 9pm and secondly its a subjective matter. Somebody like me who is a 23 stone ex alcoholic will have a much larger capacity for consumption than a 12 stone person who drinks occasionally.

Also I feel that we are in danger of abdicating our personal responsibilities by creating vicarious liability where really none exists.

For example if I get behind the wheel after six pints and cause injury and death is that my fault or the fault of the bartender who served me and thus affected my judgement as to whether getting behind the wheel was a sensible thing to do.

No reasonable person would argue that, that theory holds water and yet it's the same theory that the court is being asked to consider in this case.

It is interesting. To me, at least.

30 years ago, this was all viewed as simple. The punter's fault.

Now? Rather different. The Casino has a duty to identify problem gamblers, and to take appropriate steps in relation to protecting them and their families.

It can sometimes be difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of the wealthy. But a lot of it just boils down to numbers. For us all. So-I will try and make Rooney's £50k in 1 day, and this guy's £4mill loss into more relatable figures.

Suppose a person entering the casino is Joe Average. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he earns £400 per week. And has assets (mainly his house, but some savings/pension/whatever) of £250,000.

If he loses half his week's wages (as a 1-off), no duty on the Casino. But 10% of his net worth? That is £25k.

Then the previous actions at the casino. Writing cheques to cover losses was really common. In about 1990. Someone using this method in (say) 2010? That casino should have loud warning klaxons in its ears.

It is not, to use your analogy, that the guy doing the driving is blameless. It is the case that pub have allowed him to do this lots of times. That have had previous, less serious incidents. And had been warned to take his keys. And pubs do get fined by the licensing authorities for this. And some have their licence to sell alcohol revoked.

And no-one argues these days that there is not a point where the publican becomes liable, as well as the driver. The key issue is whether that point had been reached.

I believe that in many States in America, there is such a law. The Dram Law.

weecheez1 · January 2022

It is free choice whether it is millionaires high rolling or monday club mums huddled round doing scratchcards never classed as a problem till they lose

Essexphil · January 2022

weecheez1 said:
It is free choice whether it is millionaires high rolling or monday club mums huddled round doing scratchcards never classed as a problem till they lose

That's just not true.

Most of us are lucky enough to be able to enjoy gambling. to have a sense of proportion. To treat it as just a small, enjoyable part of life.

But gambling is a lot like drinking. What is a pleasure for the majority is an addiction for a minority. And that addiction can lead to truly horrible consequences for them and their families.

It is not "free choice" for that minority. And that is precisely why Casinos and the like have duties to protect that minority. While trying both to make a profit and make/keep it enjoyable for the majority.

Doubleme · January 2022

Essexphil said:

TheEdge949 said:
Where though does the burden of responsibility stop. If there are clear guidelines laid down in law then everybody should know where they stand.

However it still isn't clear is it.

Let's look at the licensing laws. One of them states quite clearly that it is illegal for a person to serve somebody who is already intoxicated, however the law has no definition of intoxication except for driving a vehicle.

Two things become immediately obvious here, firstly there would be hardly any night time industry after say 9pm and secondly its a subjective matter. Somebody like me who is a 23 stone ex alcoholic will have a much larger capacity for consumption than a 12 stone person who drinks occasionally.

Also I feel that we are in danger of abdicating our personal responsibilities by creating vicarious liability where really none exists.

For example if I get behind the wheel after six pints and cause injury and death is that my fault or the fault of the bartender who served me and thus affected my judgement as to whether getting behind the wheel was a sensible thing to do.

No reasonable person would argue that, that theory holds water and yet it's the same theory that the court is being asked to consider in this case.

It is interesting. To me, at least.

30 years ago, this was all viewed as simple. The punter's fault.

Now? Rather different. The Casino has a duty to identify problem gamblers, and to take appropriate steps in relation to protecting them and their families.

It can sometimes be difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of the wealthy. But a lot of it just boils down to numbers. For us all. So-I will try and make Rooney's £50k in 1 day, and this guy's £4mill loss into more relatable figures.

Suppose a person entering the casino is Joe Average. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he earns £400 per week. And has assets (mainly his house, but some savings/pension/whatever) of £250,000.

If he loses half his week's wages (as a 1-off), no duty on the Casino. But 10% of his net worth? That is £25k.

Then the previous actions at the casino. Writing cheques to cover losses was really common. In about 1990. Someone using this method in (say) 2010? That casino should have loud warning klaxons in its ears.

It is not, to use your analogy, that the guy doing the driving is blameless. It is the case that pub have allowed him to do this lots of times. That have had previous, less serious incidents. And had been warned to take his keys. And pubs do get fined by the licensing authorities for this. And some have their licence to sell alcohol revoked.

And no-one argues these days that there is not a point where the publican becomes liable, as well as the driver. The key issue is whether that point had been reached.

With respect I think this is misleading though, assessing purely on fractions of someone's net worth is not as reliable as it may at first seem.

in regards to the person you gave as an example the guy who had a networth of £250,000 in most scenarios would have spent a lifetime saving that up or had a one of inheritance that guy losing 1% of his net worth £2500 would be indicative of a problem gambler and a reckless thing to do. your example involved him making £400 a week which is near minimum wage.

now take for example Someone who earned min wage who gets paid weekly for example and pays his bills weekly for simplicity who lives in rented accommodation and has no assets to talk of, and say he bought his food shop for the week and thus has all his essentials met now say he has only £20 left, and he decides to bet £5 on a football match he is watching later that day, would you say he has a gambling problem? He just staked 25% of his networth. If we assume min wage to be £9.50 an hour since it goes up in April his weekly wage after taxes is £312.71. If I say someone who makes £312.71 a week lost £5 or 1.6% of their weekly wage on a sports bet you would not I assume suggest they have a gambling problem? If though we say someone who lost 25% of their total net worth this would flag up gambling problem straight away would it not?

i play a lot of spin and goes the max price in any stake on that is $1million dollars which at the time of me writing this is £750,000. suppose I got incredibly lucky and got the $1million spin and won it, would you then suggest I had a gambling problem if I was to say gamble £3750 of that away? To be absolutely clear their is no way I would do that, in this situation why because I wont say how much I make a week I dont think it appropriate to share such info on public forums but I will say I do not even make 25% of that a week. For someone to gamble away more then four times their weekly wages in a very short period of time is to me very indicative of someone who has a gambling problem. but hey I only staked less then 0.5% of my total net worth in this scenario. If you were to suggest that anyone staking 0.5% of their total net worth on a bet had a gambling problem and needed to be stopped or limited for their own protection then there would be no point in even entertaining a gambling industry in the UK because the only gambling industry able to survive would be the black market.

even 10% of someone's net worth could be an issue, it makes sense when your referring to property owners or people with tangible assets that either got a windful due to inheritance lottery win/something similiar or have saved up/worked for decades to acquire that. However it is a different matter for those that do not have such assets and make many times more then that on a daily basis. Eg someone who works min wage job 5 days a week makes approx £62.50 a day they wont have the means to acquire a property are likely living pay check to pay check etc, but I would not consider them someone that has a gambling problem if they staked £5/£10 occasionally on a bet.

Whilst I think it reckless for someone with £40 million to gamble away £4million it would not make a material difference to their life and some may argue they could afford this. I think its harder to quantify what constitutes a gambling problem then a simple percentage of networth.

I would assume the reason it is taking the government so long to publish the gambling white paper is that the issue is much more nuanced then a simple figure or percentage would suggest.

That been said I dont think allowing punters to reciprocate their loses would be appropriate in most cases. A fine in excess or even significantly in excess of the amount the punter lost could be justified, but both parties need to take responsibility for their actions. unless it is clear that the individual was under the influence of some intoxicant I dont think giving a gambler back their loses would help the individual learn and change.

Gambler who lost £4million sues

Comments