Judge finds gambler with £2m debt 'was the author of his own misfortunes'

The High Court has obtained judgment for £2m plus interest and indemnity costs for the Ritz Casino, after gambling addict Safa Abdulla Al Geabury's cheque bounced.

The judgment was handed down last week, despite the wealthy business man claiming he had a gambling addiction, which had led to his losses.

Al Geabury had barred himself from gambling with the Mayfair hotel, entering into a voluntary self-exclusion agreement (VSE) for life in 2009. However, almost a year later, the Ritz in consultation with the Gambling Commission agreed to cancel the VSE.

The Grosvenor Square resident argued that a VSE life agreement could not be terminated, yet the judge found that, provided it acted reasonably, a casino could agree to cancel a VSE.

Mrs Justice Simler said that although it had been presented as a case about the early revocation of a VSE in place to protect a vulnerable person with a severe gambling disorder, the evidence was nowhere near sufficient in establishing the defendant's account.

It was found that the Ritz did act reasonably - despite the defendant's previous attempts to put in place a lifetime ban - as it had consulted the Gambling Commission, who reasonably believed that Al Geabury did not have an addiction.

The judgment explored guidance in the nature of VSEs, and the so-called obligations of licence holders to protect self-excluded gamblers.

Experts for the Ritz and Al Geabury had agreed in written reports that, on the basis of information provided by the defendant, he had been suffering from a gambling problem.

However, analysis of his records while gambling at the Ritz and other casinos by the prosecution, along with cross examination of various expert witnesses, demonstrated that Al Geabury had no gambling addiction at any time.

The judge subsequently rejected the defendant's evidence finding that the he had provided false information, both to his doctor and to experts, order to support his allegations.

Simler J concluded: 'The defence of illegality and breach of contract, and the claims of negligence, the additional serious allegations of misrepresentation, undue influence and unconscionable transaction all fail. The defendant failed to establish that he had any gambling disorder at any material time and ultimately accepted that he never told any of the casino staff about any such problem. He was the author of his own misfortunes.'

Esther Nimmo is an editorial assistant at Solicitors Journal