A gambling addict has been ordered to repay a casino £2.2m.
Safa Abdulla Al Geabury, 52, a Swiss national, was ordered by a UK Court to return the monies to the famed Ritz Casino.
Abdulla had argued that he should not have to pay the debt based on his assertion that the casino knew he was a gambling addict.
The wealthy gambler also claimed he had a “brain problem” and that the “Devil made me gamble”.
Mrs Justice Simler in her ruling said Friday: 'The facts of this case are highly unusual and unlikely to be repeated.
'Although it has been presented as a case about the early revocation of a VSE (voluntary self exclusion) in place to protect a vulnerable person with a severe gambling disorder, the evidence was a far cry from establishing the defendant's account.
'The defence of illegality and breach of contract, and the claims of negligence, the additional serious allegations of misrepresentation, undue influence and unconsiderable transaction all fail.
'The defendant failed to establish that he had any gambling disorder at any material time and ultimately accepted that he had never told any of the casino staff about any such problem.
'He was the author of his own misfortunes.'
source
Safa Abdulla Al Geabury, 52, a Swiss national, was ordered by a UK Court to return the monies to the famed Ritz Casino.
Abdulla had argued that he should not have to pay the debt based on his assertion that the casino knew he was a gambling addict.
The wealthy gambler also claimed he had a “brain problem” and that the “Devil made me gamble”.
Mrs Justice Simler in her ruling said Friday: 'The facts of this case are highly unusual and unlikely to be repeated.
'Although it has been presented as a case about the early revocation of a VSE (voluntary self exclusion) in place to protect a vulnerable person with a severe gambling disorder, the evidence was a far cry from establishing the defendant's account.
'The defence of illegality and breach of contract, and the claims of negligence, the additional serious allegations of misrepresentation, undue influence and unconsiderable transaction all fail.
'The defendant failed to establish that he had any gambling disorder at any material time and ultimately accepted that he had never told any of the casino staff about any such problem.
'He was the author of his own misfortunes.'
source
