Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Hughes,Lord Neuberger,Lady Hale,Lord Kerr,Lord Thomas
Judgment Date25 October 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] UKSC 67
Date25 October 2017
CourtSupreme Court
Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords

[2017] UKSC 67


Lord Neuberger

Lady Hale

Lord Kerr

Lord Hughes

Lord Thomas


Michaelmas Term

On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 1093


Richard Spearman QC

Max Mallin QC

(Instructed by Archerfield Partners LLP)


Christopher Pymont QC

Siward Atkins

(Instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP)

Heard on 13 July 2017

Lord Hughes

(with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord KerrandLord Thomasagree)


This case, in which a professional gambler sues a casino for winnings at Punto Banco Baccarat, raises questions about (1) the meaning of the concept of cheating at gambling, (2) the relevance to it of dishonesty, and (3) the proper test for dishonesty if such is an essential element of cheating.

The facts

Over two days in August 2012 Mr Ivey, the claimant in this case, deployed a highly specialist technique called edge-sorting which had the effect of greatly improving his chances of winning. He had the help of another professional gambler, Cheung Yin Sun ("Ms Sun"). First they set up the conditions which enabled him to win. Then, later that evening and the following day, over the course of some hours, he won approximately £7.7m. The casino declined to pay, taking the view that what he had done amounted to cheating. His case is that it was not cheating, but deployment of a perfectly legitimate advantage.


What happened is not in dispute. It was set out with admirable clarity by Mitting J and very little is necessary by way of addition or subtraction. What follows in this section is almost entirely in his words.


Punto Banco is a variant of Baccarat. It is not normally, to any extent, a game of skill. Six or eight decks or, in English nomenclature, packs of 52 cards are dealt from a shoe, face down by a croupier. Because the cards are delivered one by one from the shoe, she has only to extract them; no deviation is permitted in their sequence. She places them face down in two positions on the table in front of her, marked "player", the "Punto" in the name, and "Banker", "Banco". Those descriptions label the positions marked on the table; there need be no person as "player" and ordinarily there is not. She slides the cards from the shoe, face down, one card to player, one to banker; a second to player and a second to banker. In prescribed circumstances she must deal one further card, either to player or to banker or to both, but this possibility is irrelevant to what occurred.


The basic object of the game is to achieve, on one of the two positions, a combination of two or three cards which, when added together, is nearer to 9 in total than the combination on the other position. Aces to 9 count at face value, 10 to King inclusive count as nothing. Any pair or trio of cards adding up to more than 10 requires 10 to be deducted before arriving at the counting total. Thus 4 plus 5 equals 9, but 6 plus 5 (which equals 11) counts as only 1.


Punters (of whom there need only be one) play the house. They bet before any card is dealt and can bet on either the player or banker position. The cards are revealed by the croupier after a full hand (or "coup"), usually of four cards, two to each position, has been dealt. Winning bets are paid at evens on player, and at 19 to 20 on banker. It is possible to bet on a tie. In the event of a tie, all bets on player or banker are annulled; in other words, the punter keeps his stake and the only bet paid out on is the tie at odds set by the casino of either eight to one or, at Crockfords, nine to one. It is possible to place other types of bet, but this case does not concern them and they need not be described. The different odds mean that the casino, or house, enjoys a small advantage, taken over all the play. That is standard and well known to all; casinos publish the percentage "house edge" which they operate. In Punto Banco at Crockfords it was 1.24% if player wins and 1.06% if banker wins.


A pack of 52 playing cards is manufactured so as to present a uniform appearance on the back and a unique appearance on the face. The backs of some cards are, however, not exactly uniform. The backs of many packs of cards for social use have an obvious top and bottom: for example the manufacturer's name may be printed once only, or the pattern may have an obviously right way up and an upside down. In casino games in which the orientation of the back of the card may matter, cards are used which are in principle indistinguishable whichever way round they are when presented in a shoe.


Cards with no pattern and no margin at the edge present no problem; they are indistinguishable. However, many cards used in casinos are patterned. If the pattern is precisely symmetrical the effect is the same as if the card is plain; the back of one card is indistinguishable from any other. But if the pattern is not precisely symmetrical it may be possible to distinguish between cards by examining the backs.


"Edge-sorting" becomes possible when the manufacturing process causes tiny differences to appear on the edges of the cards so that, for example, the edge of one long side is marginally different from the edge of the other. Some cards printed by Angel Co Ltd for the Genting Group (which owns Crockfords) have this characteristic, apparently within the narrow tolerances specified for manufacture. The pattern is not precisely symmetrical on the back of the cards. The machine which cuts the card leaves very slightly more of the pattern, a white circle broken by two curved lines, visible on one long edge than on the other. The difference is sub-millimetric, but the pattern is, to that very limited extent, closer to one long edge of the card than it is to the other. Before a card is dealt from a shoe, it sits face down at the bottom of the shoe, displaying one of its two long edges. It is possible for a sharp-eyed person sitting close to the shoe to see which long edge it is.


Being able thus to see which long edge is displayed is by itself of no help to the gambler. All the cards have the same tiny difference between their right and left long edges, so knowing which edge is displayed tells the gambler nothing about the value of the next card in the shoe. The information becomes significant only if things can be so arranged that the cards which the gambler is most interested in are all presented with long edge type A facing the table, whilst all the less interesting cards present long edge type B. Then the gambler knows which kind of card is next out of the shoe.


In Punto Banco cards with a face value of 7, 8 and 9 are high value cards. If one such card is dealt to player or to banker, it will give that position a better chance of winning than the other. Thus a punter who knows that when the first card dealt (always to the "player" position) is a 7, 8 or 9, he will know that it is more likely than not that player will win. If he knows that the card is not a 7, 8 or 9, he will know that it is more likely than not that banker will win. Such knowledge, it is agreed, will give the punter a long-term edge of about 6.5% over the house if played perfectly accurately.


What is therefore necessary for edge-sorting to work is for the cards in the shoe to be sorted so that all the 7s, 8s and 9s display edge type A, whilst the rest display edge type B. That means rotating the high value cards so that they display edge type A. If the punter were to touch the cards, the invariable practice at most casinos, including at Crockfords, would be that those cards would not be used again. The only person who touches the cards is the croupier. So what had to happen was to get the cards sorted (ie differentially rotated) by type A and type B by the croupier and then to get them re-used in the next shoe, now distinctively sorted.


For edge-sorting to work at Crockfords it is therefore essential that the croupier is persuaded to rotate the relevant cards without her realising why she is being asked to do so. Casinos routinely play on quirky and superstitious behaviour by punters. It is in the casino's interests that punters should believe, erroneously, that a lucky charm or practice will improve their chance of winning and so modify or defeat the house edge. Consequently a wide variety of requests by punters, particularly those willing to wager large sums on games which they must, if they play long enough, lose in the long run, are accommodated by casinos without demur or surprise.


All of the games of Punto Banco played by the claimant and Ms Sun on 20 and 21 August 2012 were captured on CCTV, mostly with contemporaneous audio recording as well. The moment at which they persuaded the croupier, Kathy Yau, to rotate the cards was at 9 pm on 20 August. The video shows it and the words spoken have been transcribed. Before then, the claimant and Ms Sun had played part of four shoes, the first two plain backed, and the second two Angel cards but with no asymmetry on the back.


The claimant is a high stakes gambler. He began, by his standards, modestly: bets placed on those four shoes ranged from £4,000 to £75,000 per coup. He was losing. At 8.56 pm he requested a new shoe of cards. A new shoe was produced. The cards were blue Angel cards with the rounded pattern described on the back. At 8.57 the claimant asked Jeremy Hillier, the senior croupier overseeing the game: "If I win, can I say I want the same cards again?" to which Mr Hillier replied he could, "because [he was] not bending them". The claimant had in fact avoided touching the cards from either the first or second shoe onwards.


The croupier, Kathy Yau, then put the cards face down in blocks on the table to make the cut, as is conventional. She cut the cards so as to exclude about one deck from play. The claimant asked about the cut: "Why...

To continue reading

Request your trial
244 cases
  • Dr Hemmay Raychaudhuri v General Medical Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 September 2018
    ...following the hearing before Sweeney J this approach to dishonesty was disapproved by the Supreme Court by its judgment in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391 and replaced with a different approach. Before Sweeney J and before us it was common ground that the appr......
  • Soophia Khan v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 7 March 2022
    ...that by those standards he was acting dishonestly. Rather, by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391, the test is now aligned with the civil law test of dishonesty as explained by the Privy Council in in Barlow Clowes Internat......
  • David Barton v The Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 29 April 2020
    ...of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053. In Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391 the Supreme Court, in a carefully considered lengthy obiter dictum delivered by Lord Hughes of Ombersley, explained why the law h......
  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 23 October 2023
    ...asked to make many findings of dishonesty. 24 I have approached dishonesty as guided by Lord Hughes in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391, at [74]: “74. … When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 firm's commentaries
  • Financial Markets Disputes and Regulatory Update - January 2018 - Judgments
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 16 January 2018
    ...[1981] 1 WLR 1233 7 (1886) 32 Ch D 512 When and how dishonesty needs to be shown Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 In a much-publicised recent case, the Supreme Court has considered two issues: first, whether it is necessary to prove dishonesty in order to make ......
  • English Court of Appeal Decision in Significant Test Case: Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 28 March 2018
    ...such as Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 WLR 1476 and Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] 3 WLR 1212, may be relevant.” This point will need to be resolved by another case and/or The Valuation Claim Also of potential sig......
  • English Court Of Appeal Decision In Significant Test Case: Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank Of Scotland
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 28 March 2018
    ...such as Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 WLR 1476 and Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] 3 WLR 1212, may be relevant.” This point will need to be resolved by another case and/or The Valuation Claim Also of potential sig......
  • Life on the edge: an honest cheater?
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 1 March 2018
    ...v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd, t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 The decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom late last year in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd1 has sparked significant commentary due to its relevance to the historically disparate domains of criminal law and contractual ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 24-2, April 2020
    • 1 April 2020
    ...misconduct’.99. Section 2(1)(a).100. Section 2(2)(b).101. Section 2(1)(b)(i) and (ii).102. Section 2(3)(a) and (b).103. Section 2(4).104. [2017] UKSC 67.105. [1982] EWCA Crim 2.106. [2017] EWHC 2820 (Admin).107. DPP vPatterson at [16].108. [2011] EWCA Crim 1130 at [6].198 The International ......
  • The New Test for Dishonesty in Criminal Law—Lessons From the Courts of Equity?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 84-1, February 2020
    • 1 February 2020
    ...37.12. [2006] EWCA Civ 1492.13. A Hudson, ‘Current Legal Problems Concerning Trusts, Fiduciaries and Finance’ (2006) 21(3) JIBLR 149.14. [2017] UKSC 67.15. A Jackson, ‘Goodbye to Ghosh: The UK Supreme Court Clarifies the Proper Test for Dishonesty to be Applied in CriminalProceedings’ (2017......
  • Mistaking theft: Dishonesty ‘turns over a new leaf’
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 86-1, February 2022
    • 1 February 2022
    ...It isargued in this article that the rulings in R v Barton [2020] 3 WLR 1333 and Ivey v Genting Casinos(UK) (trading as Crockfords Club) [2018] AC 391 do not change the doctrine of mistake of fact orcivil law but do change the law in respect of mistakes about what is honest. A defendant who......
  • Lecture
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...Interpretation: Do Judges Sometimes Say One Thing and Mean Another?” (2017) 23 Canterbury Law Review 1 at 10–11, paras 33–37. 68 [2017] UKSC 67. 69 [1982] QB 1053. 70 [1995] 2 AC 378. 71 [2006] 1 WLR 1476. 72 See Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court, “Preserving the Integrity of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT