Alan David Solomon v Alan Spence

Whether activities are carried on in the course of a business under the Gambling Act 2005 is a contextual question of degree. System, repetition and continuity are relevant, and the provision of facilities for gambling must be assessed broadly. Section 33 does not make gambling contracts void or unenforceable merely because the provider commits an offence. Under the common law illegality doctrine, the court must assess whether refusing relief would protect the integrity of the legal system, weigh competing public policies, and consider proportionality only if the balance clearly favours denial. Gambling debts remain generally enforceable. Unlicensed or unlawful conduct does not automatically bar recovery where enforcement would not materially advance the statutory purposes or protect vulnerable persons.

The claimant sought recovery of four liabilities arising from extensive betting dealings with the defendant. Debts 1 and 2 arose from bets made directly between them. Debts 3 and 4 arose under an arrangement by which the claimant sent bets to the defendant for placement with Spreadex or other mainstream bookmakers. The defendant instead stood most of the bets himself and failed to pay winnings.

The principal issues were whether the claimant acted in the course of a business, whether his activities constituted the provision of facilities for gambling or acting as a betting intermediary, and whether statutory or common law illegality made the liabilities unenforceable.

1. Debts 1 and 2. The claimant was acting in the course of a business. The relevant activities were systematic, repeated and continuous, involved detailed records, hedging, betting for others and an expectation of profit. The fact that the betting with this defendant was between individuals did not make it recreational.
2. Debts 3 and 4. The claimant provided facilities for gambling under section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005. He also acted as a betting intermediary under section 13 by providing a service designed to facilitate bets between others. He acted in the course of a business and therefore could not rely on the private betting exception in section 296(3).
3. Section 33 created a criminal offence but did not render the underlying gambling contracts void or unenforceable. Section 335 expressly preserved enforcement of gambling contracts, subject to other rules of unlawfulness. The reasoning in Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair) [2025] EWCA Civ 1589 applied even though the present case concerned a different section 33 exception.
4. The common law illegality defence was governed by the three-stage approach in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467. The policy reasons supporting denial of the claims were outweighed by policies supporting rejection of the defence. The defendant was wealthy, had acted with knowledge of the circumstances, and was not shown by professional evidence to be a vulnerable person requiring protection. The fairness and crime-prevention objectives of the Act did not justify denying recovery.
5. Proportionality therefore did not arise. In any event, denying recovery would not have been proportionate. The claimant was entitled to £65,629 and £516,515 as debts, and damages of £251,008 and £8,368.25. The parties were directed to submit a draft order.