Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67

Facts

  • Phil Ivey, a professional gambler, played Punto Banco at Crockfords Club, a London casino, and used a technique known as edge-sorting to gain an advantage by exploiting minute pattern differences on the backs of playing cards.
  • Ivey’s actions enabled him to accurately predict card values, resulting in significant winnings of approximately £7.7 million.
  • Genting Casinos refused to pay the winnings, arguing edge-sorting constituted cheating and breached implied terms of the gambling contract.
  • Ivey brought legal proceedings to recover his winnings, contending his conduct was not cheating.

Issues

  1. Whether Ivey’s use of edge-sorting constituted cheating under the terms implied in the gambling contract and the Gambling Act 2005.
  2. Whether the legal test for dishonesty, as defined by the Ghosh test, should be retained or reformulated.
  3. Whether Ivey’s subjective belief about his conduct affected the determination of dishonesty.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court found that Ivey’s conduct amounted to cheating under the implied terms of the gambling agreement.
  • The Court overruled the second limb of the Ghosh test, rejecting the need for a subjective assessment of dishonesty.
  • The Court held that dishonesty should be determined by the objective standards of ordinary decent people, based on the actual state of knowledge or belief of the defendant as to the facts.
  • Ivey’s claim for the winnings was rejected.

Legal Principles

  • The test for dishonesty is now objective: the fact-finder must ascertain the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, then assess whether conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people.
  • The subjective limb of the Ghosh test—requiring that the defendant realize their conduct was dishonest by those standards—is no longer part of the law.
  • Greater consistency and clarity are achieved in the legal approach to dishonesty across both civil and criminal law.
  • Cheating in the context of gaming contracts includes conduct that undermines the integrity of the game, even absent deception or explicit rule-breaking.

Conclusion

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 is a landmark judgment that rejected the subjective Ghosh test for dishonesty, establishing a uniform, objective standard based on societal norms. The Supreme Court held that Ivey’s edge-sorting amounted to cheating, clarifying the law of dishonesty for both civil and criminal contexts and ensuring future cases assess dishonesty by the standards of ordinary decent people.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal