Case citation: Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (t\/a Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67<\/strong><\/p>\n Also known as: Ivey v Genting \/ Ivey v Crockfords \/ Phil Ivey v Crockfords<\/strong><\/p>\n Table of Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n In Ivey v Genting Casinos\u00a0professional gambler Phil Ivey visited Crockfords Club, a casino in London, and played a game of Punto Banco, a form of baccarat. Over two days, Ivey won a substantial sum of money. However, the casino refused to pay out his winnings, suspecting that he had used a technique known as ‘edge-sorting’ to gain an unfair advantage. Edge-sorting involves identifying small differences in the patterns on the backs of playing cards to determine their face value.<\/p>\n The key issue was whether Ivey’s use of edge-sorting constituted cheating under the Gambling Act 2005. The case also addressed the test for dishonesty in English criminal law, specifically whether the test established in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053<\/a> should be reconsidered.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court unanimously held that Ivey’s actions amounted to cheating. The Court found that edge-sorting involved manipulating the game in a manner which was not intended by the casino and was inherently dishonest. Importantly, the Court also took this opportunity to overrule the Ghosh test for dishonesty, replacing it with a more straightforward, two-step objective test: firstly, determining the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, and secondly, whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.<\/p>\n\n
Facts<\/h3>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n
Decision \/ Outcome<\/h3>\n
Analysis<\/h3>\n