Phil Ivey gains Supreme Court go-ahead to appeal Crockfords ‘edge-sorting’ case

London communications agency Hadden Consulting has confirmed that poker legend Phil Ivey has been granted permission by the Supreme Court to appeal his overturned £7.8 million Punto Banco ‘edge-sorting’ dispute against Genting Casinos.

Last November, Ivey who is considered the best poker player in the world lost his legal battle against Crockfords Club Mayfair (Genting Casinos), as the UK Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the casino operator.

The Court of Appeal held that Ivey had knowingly used ‘edge-sorting’ skills to gain an unfair advantage on Crockfords. Under its house rules, the casino was therefore right not to pay Ivey his multi-million winnings, since Ivey was deemed to have played a ‘dishonest game’.

Following the decision, Ivey’s representatives immediately detailed that the poker pro would take his case to the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court of appeal for civil cases. Issuing a statement through Hadden Consulting, Ivey commented on the matter

‘Last November’s Court of Appeal ruling made no sense to me. The original trial judge ruled that I was not dishonest and none of the three Appeal Court judges disagreed, and yet the decision went against me by a majority of 2 to 1.  I am so pleased that the Supreme Court has granted me permission to fight for what I genuinely believe is the right thing to do in my circumstances, and for the entire gaming industry. I look forward to the Supreme Court reversing the decision against me.’

Phil Ivey is represented by Richard Spearman QC and Max Mallin QC of Thirty Nine Essex Chambers and Wilberforce Chambers respectively and Matthew Dowd of Archerfield Partners LLP.

Matthew Dowd stated: ‘Phil and his legal team are delighted that the Supreme Court judges have decided that the Court of Appeal’s decision should be reviewed. The Court of Appeal’s ruling left the interpretation of Section 42 of the Gambling Act totally unclear and the decision to grant permission to appeal demonstrates that the Supreme Court agrees with that view.’