The story about the gambler who was refused his winnings by a gambling club because they said he cheated – a claim upheld in the High Court – caught my eye this morning. I had always understood that gambling activity was binding ‘in honour only’ and did not represent contracts in law. Is this not the case?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Don’t know. Maybe on-course bets with bookies aren’t ‘legally binding’ but I guess places of business impose stricter rules.
I don’t know about the legals, but in my ‘umble opinion, he was clearly cheating.
What were the sums involved? In some instances transactions above a certain amount are subject to further scrutiny.
Hi Bravo
You bring back happy student days of ‘Gloag on Contract’ and sponsio ludicra. . Gambling debts and winnings were covered by that doctrine and were unenforceable in Scots Law. I think that there was a similar doctrine in England and Wales.
All that was changed in mainland UK by the Gambling Act 2005 s335 which states that contracts relating to licenced gambling are enforceable so he was able to take his case to the Court.
Thanks, JM, – seems the passage of the Gambling Act passed me by 🙂
One has to note that immediately any punter wins big in a casino they are accused of ‘cheating’ whatever they are doing and there is no payment out with or without lawsuits.
Somewhat ironic seeing the casinos cheat too!