Ivey v Genting Casinos

Last updated

Ivey v Genting Casinos
CourtSupreme Court
Full case nameIvey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords
Citation(s)[2017] UKSC 67
Cases cited R v Ghosh
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas
Keywords
dishonesty

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]

Contents

Facts

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.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that Ivey had cheated, and was thus not entitled to the payment sought from Genting Casinos. Lord Hughes considered at length whether the existing test for dishonesty was acceptable, noting that dishonesty in civil contexts is judged objectively. The existing test had been developed in the case R v Ghosh , and required firstly that the act would be considered dishonest by an ordinary, reasonable person, and secondly that the accused would have realised that what they were doing was, by those standards, dishonest. This second component was ruled to be inadequate and only the first part of the earlier test was applied.

Reception

In the High Court case of DPP v Patterson, Sir Brian Leveson observed that:

Given the terms of the unanimous observations of the Supreme Court expressed by Lord Hughes, who does not shy from asserting that Ghosh does not correctly represent the law, it is difficult to imagine the Court of Appeal preferring Ghosh to Ivey in the future. [2]

The applicability of the Supreme Court's direction in Ivey to criminal law was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Booth and Barton. [3] [4]

David Ormerod and Karl Laird criticised the direction of the law following Ivey, arguing that the lack of a subjective element will lead to uncertainty and a possible human rights challenge under Article 7, citing a prior challenge to Ghosh. [5] [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft</span> Act of taking anothers property without consent

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief".

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phil Ivey</span> American poker player (born 1977)

Phillip Dennis Ivey Jr. is an American professional poker player who has won ten World Series of Poker bracelets, one World Poker Tour title, and appeared at nine World Poker Tour final tables. Ivey is regarded by numerous poker observers and contemporaries as the best all-around player in the world. In 2017, he was elected to the Poker Hall of Fame.

Dishonesty is acting without honesty. The term describes cheating, deficient probity, lying, deliberate withholding of information, being deliberately deceptive, or showing knavishness, perfidiousness, corruption, treachery, or deficient integrity.

In English criminal law, public nuisance is a act, condition or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the general public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duck test</span> Classification based on observable evidence

The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning, usually expressed as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Possession of stolen goods</span> Category of crime

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.

Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under the common law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

<i>R v Ghosh</i> English criminal law case

R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case setting out a test for dishonest conduct which was relevant as to many offences worded as doing an act dishonestly, such as deception, as theft, as mainstream types of fraud, and as benefits fraud. The test has been revised to an objective test, with rare exceptions, by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

This article concerns appeals against decisions of the Crown Court of England and Wales. The majority of appeals against Crown Court decisions are heard by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

At law, cheating is a specific criminal offence relating to property.

Dishonest assistance, or knowing assistance, is a type of third party liability under English trust law. It is usually seen as one of two liabilities established in Barnes v Addy, the other one being knowing receipt. To be liable for dishonest assistance, there must be a breach of trust or fiduciary duty by someone other than the defendant, the defendant must have helped that person in the breach, and the defendant must have a dishonest state of mind. The liability itself is well established, but the mental element of dishonesty is subject to considerable controversy which sprang from the House of Lords case Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley.

<i>Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan</i>

Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan[1995] UKPC 4 is an English trusts law case, concerning breach of trust and liability for dishonest assistance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edge sorting</span> Advantage gambling technique

Edge sorting is a technique used in advantage gambling where a player determines whether a face-down playing card is likely to be low or high at casino table games by observing, learning, and exploiting subtle unintentional differences on the backs of the cards being dealt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crockfords (casino)</span> Casino

Crockfords is a closed casino in London located on Curzon Street. The casino took its name from the former gentlemen's club in London called Crockford's.

References

  1. "Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent)". The Supreme Court. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  2. [2017] EWHC 2820, at [16].
  3. R v Booth and Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575
  4. Atkins, Tony (30 April 2020). "Dishonesty: Barton & Booth v The Queen". Pump Court Chambers. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  5. R v Pattni [2001] Crim LR 570
  6. Ormerod, David; Laird, Karl (2018). Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law (15th ed.). Oxford. p. 881. ISBN   9780198807094. OCLC   1014163712.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)