Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords

The case before the UK Supreme Court was an appeal by Steven Ivey, a professional gambler, against a decision of the Court of Appeal that Ivey had cheated at a game of Punto Banco Baccarat at Crockfords casino, and thus his winnings should not be paid. The Supreme Court was required to decide whether Ivey's actions amounted to cheating and, if so, whether there was a requirement of dishonesty for an activity to amount to cheating. The Supreme Court held that Ivey's actions did amount to cheating, and that there was no requirement of dishonesty for an activity to amount to cheating. The court found that Ivey's actions amounted to cheating because he had deliberately manipulated the cards in the shoe to give himself an unfair advantage, which was contrary to the nature and rules of the game. The court also found that there was no requirement of dishonesty for an activity to amount to cheating, as the concept of cheating carried its own inherent stamp of wrongfulness. The Supreme Court dismissed Ivey's appeal, and thus the casino was entitled to refuse to pay his winnings.

The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the meaning of the concept of cheating in the context of gambling and the role of dishonesty in determining whether an activity amounts to cheating. The court held that cheating in gambling is an objective concept, determined by the nature and rules of the game, and does not necessarily require dishonesty. This decision provides guidance to casinos and gamblers alike in determining what activities may amount to cheating in gambling, and the potential legal consequences of such activities.