Authored By: Sageda El-Sanossi
University of Liverpool
Case Name: Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017
Citation: [2017] UKSC 67
Court: The Supreme Court
Date of Judgement: 25th October 2017
Parties involved: Phillip Ivey the claimant and Genting Casinos UK Ltd the defendant
Facts of the Case
Phillip Ivey, a professional gambler was playing a high stakes game of baccarat at Crockfords Casino operated by Genting Casinos UK Ltd. Over the two days of the game, Ivey used a technique called edge sorting which significantly increased his chances of distinguishing high value cards consequently winning the game. He did this by identifying subtle differences in the back of the playing cards which enabled him to distinguish high value cards. He then persuaded the croupier to rotate specific cards using the disguise of being superstitious, by doing this he could visually distinguish the high and low value cards allowing him to predict future deals 1. Over the two days of using this technique he won £7.7million.
Initially, Genting Casinos accepted the Ivey’s win. However, after internal investigations they refused to pay, arguing that Ivey had cheated breaching the implied term of their gaming contract which required fair play. In response, Ivey refuted this and brought a civil claim for breach of contract arguing he didn’t cheat and that his conduct was honest and legitimate.
Issues raised
There were several legal issues in this case that could possibly hinder the possibility of Genting Casinos being legally obligated to pay Phillip his £7.7 million winnings. The several legal questions it raises have a significant impact on both gambling law and broader legal rules.
A significant issue raised within this case is whether Phillip cheated, does his act of using the edge sorting technique amount to cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. Another issue was, does cheating under the Gambling Act 2005 require dishonesty and what is the definition of dishonestly in civil and criminal cases. Under S42 of the Gambling Act 2005 a person commits an offence if he cheats at gambling or does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling 2. This questions whether dishonestly is a requirement for an act to be considered cheating and whether the subjective element of dishonesty calls for reform.
Arguments of the parties
Philip Ivey
Phillip, the claimant maintained the defence of not doing anything unlawful or unfair. He argued that his use of the edge sorting technique was a legitimate technique that allowed him to take advantage of weakness in the casinos card manufacturing and procedures. He insisted that he had not acted dishonestly, that he genuinely believed his conduct was honest and within the accepted practices of gambling. Additionally, he argued that whilst playing the game he never had the intention of cheating or acting dishonesty therefore his technique only gave him an advantage. Consequently, he had not breached any legal or contractual obligations so Genting Casinos refusal to pay him his winnings constitutes to a breach of contract.
Genting Casinos
Genting Casinos, the defendant initially accepted Ivey’s winnings and where willing to pay him, however they later changed their mind. They argued that Ivey’s conduct constitutes to cheating breaching the implied term in their contract and amounted to an offence under the Gambling Act 2005. Although Ivey hadn’t physically moved the cards himself, his
manipulation of the placement of the cards by exploiting the croupier amounted to deliberately ignoring the casinos rules of integrity and fairness. His conduct gave him the advantage others didn’t have 3. Genting Casinos insisted that Philip failed to comply with their expectations of fair play and transparency, additionally they emphasised that dishonestly was not a required element to establish cheating under the Gambling Act 2005. Therefore, Ivey’s intention and belief of being honest were irrelevant, he clearly manipulated the outcome of the game which is enough for cheating in Genting’s defence.
Court Judgement
The Supreme court held that Phillip Ivey had indeed cheated even if he genuinely believed his conduct was honest and within the rules of fair play. His manipulation of the croupier, rotation of placement of cards fundamentally altered the nature of the game, consequentially giving Ivey an unfair advantage and changing the outcome of the game. Therefore, Genting Casinos was justified in refusing to pay Phillip his £7.7 million winnings.
Whilst determining the verdict of this case, the court ruled that cheating in Section 42 under the Gambling Act 2005 does not require dishonesty. This means a person can be held liable for cheating even if they believed they were acting honestly. They found that if a person’s conduct impaired the standard of the game, it would amount to cheating. In this case Phillip Ivey deliberately acted in this way in order to change the element of chance within the game and manipulate the outcome.
In addition to this, they noticed the issues the subjective element of dishonesty poses. They overruled the Ghosh Test for dishonesty creating a two part test which focuses on the defendants subjective knowledge and objectively decides whether this amounts to dishonesty.
Legal Reasoning
The Supreme court took the stance that cheating can occur even without dishonesty, it emphasised that whilst the cheating element under the Gambling Act 2005 does not express the requirement of dishonesty it has a broader interpretation. The main focus is whether the conduct interferes with the maintenance of a fair operation of the game.
Ivey took well thought out steps to manipulate the operation of the game to his advantage. The court found that his actions were beyond having an advantage, he breached the implied term in Genting Casinos contract, which prohibits cheating 4. Ivey was personally responsible for his advantage, as he actively caused the croupier to act in a way that was favourable for him. Therefore, he wasn’t simply taking advantage of the errors or weak procedures, leading to the court finding him guilty of cheating.
The most significant part of the ruling was the courts changes to the test of dishonesty in English Law. Before this case dishonesty was assed using a two step test established in the case of R V Ghosh [1982]5.
The first step is an objective test; was the defendants conduct dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? The second step is assessing if the defendant realises that ordinary, honest people would consider their actions dishonest, using a subjective test. The court found that this test is problematic particularly the subjective element. This is because it allowed individuals with a skewed standard of honesty to escape liability by claiming they don’t understand or have the same standards of honesty as society. The court proposed a new objective test called the Ivey test 6:
- First, understanding the defendant’s knowledge or belief regarding the facts of the situation.
- Secondly, based on the facts would an ordinary and honest person view the defendants conduct as dishonest.
This reform doesn’t take into consideration the defendant’s personal beliefs about what honesty is and what conduct amount to dishonesty. The court emphasised that whether a conduct is dishonest should not vary from one person to the other based on a subjective view. This new test had a profound impact on English Law and has replaced the Ghosh test and is being consistently applied in new cases.
Conclusion
Ivey v Genting Casinos is a landmark case with significant implication in gambling law, the doctrine of dishonesty in Englis Law and in Criminal Law. By ruling that cheating doesn’t require dishonesty under the Gambling Act 2005, the court adopted a broader and more objective understanding of manipulation and cheating in gambling games. This reinforces the fairness and integrity required in games and gives casinos as well as others legal footing in challenging manipulative conduct. In addition to this, this test could be applied in theft and fraud cases, holding people accountable for their actions ensuring they pay for their thoughtless conduct.
The redefinition of the test for dishonesty resulted in a more consistent and legal standard, focusing on the defendant’s belief about the facts, society’s standards but not morality. This has reduced the broadness of the test, simplified the jury’s directions and reduced the likelihood of those guilty to be hiding behind a subjective defence.
Whilst the new Ivey test enhances objectivity and legal certainty reinforcing the rule of law, critics have emphasised its failure to consider genuine cultural differences and phycological differences in moral reasoning. By removing the subjective element of the dishonesty test, it assumes that everyone shares the same understanding and belief of what dishonesty is and
what constitutes dishonesty. However, this is not the case, moral judgements vary significantly across cultures, backgrounds, personal experiences and level of reasoning. This could potentially put those who don’t conform to social norms in a disadvantageous position.
Reference(S):
1 Dominic Dyer, ‘Ivey v Genting Casinos – Honesty Over Dishonesty’ (Corker Binning, 30 October 2017) https://corkerbinning.com/ivey-v-genting-casinos-honesty-over-dishonesty/ < accessed 18 August 2025>
2 Gambling Act 2005, S42
3Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd – Case Summary (IPSA Loquitur, 2017) https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/ivey-v-genting-casinos-uk/ <accessed 18 August 2025>
4 Phillip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Limited (2 Hare Court, 3 March 2015) https://www.2harecourt.com/2015/03/03/phillip-ivey-v-genting-casinos-uk-limited/ accessed 18 August 2025
5 R v Ghost test [1982]
6Jonathan Brogden, Court of Appeal confirms Ivey test for dishonesty is correct and clarifies the English Court’s approach to rules of precedent (DAC Beachcroft, 27 May 2020) https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/What-we-think/Court-of-Appeal-confirms-Ivey-test-for Dishonesty-is-correct-and-clarifies-the-English-Courts-approa <accessed 20 August 2025>
