Solomon v Spence [2026] EWHC 645 (Ch) (20 March 2026)

Solomon v Spence [2026] EWHC 645 (Ch) (20 March 2026)

The claimant was acting in the course of a business in relation to all betting activities, including the Spreadex Agreement, and thus outside the statutory exception for private betting under section 296(3) of the Gambling Act 2005. However, section 33 of the Act does not render gambling contracts void or unenforceable; public policy and statutory construction favour enforceability even where the operator is in breach. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 645 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alan David Solomon; Defendant: Alan Spence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; claimant entitled to recover all sums claimed.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Gambling Debts, Statutory Illegality, Betting Intermediary Liability, Business Definition Under Gambling Act 2005
Gambling Law Contract Law Illegality Enforceability of Gambling Debts Statutory Illegality Betting Intermediary Liability Business Definition Under Gambling Act 2005

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan David Solomon

Claimant

Alan Spence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are gambling debts between the parties enforceable under the Gambling Act 2005?
  2. 2 Was the claimant acting in the course of a business for the purposes of statutory illegality?
  3. 3 Does the Spreadex Agreement constitute illegal betting intermediary activity?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was acting in the course of a business in relation to all betting activities, including the Spreadex Agreement, and thus outside the statutory exception for private betting under section 296(3) of the Gambling Act 2005. However, section 33 of the Act does not render gambling contracts void or unenforceable; public policy and statutory construction favour enforceability even where the operator is in breach. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; claimant entitled to recover all sums claimed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £65,629 for Debt 1.
  • Defendant to pay claimant £516,515 for Debt 2.