Alan David Solomon v Alan Spence

Alan David Solomon v Alan Spence

The claimant was acting in the course of a business both in direct betting with the defendant and as a betting intermediary under the Spreadex Agreement, but statutory and common law illegality do not preclude enforcement of the debts under the Gambling Act 2005 or public policy. The contracts are enforceable and the claimant is entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Parties
Claimant: Alan David Solomon; Defendant: Alan Spence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Enforceability of Gambling Debts, Statutory Interpretation, Common Law Illegality, Betting Intermediary Liability
Contract Law Gambling Law Illegality Defence Enforceability of Gambling Debts Statutory Interpretation Common Law Illegality Betting Intermediary Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan David Solomon

Claimant

Alan Spence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was acting in the course of a business under the Gambling Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the contracts giving rise to the debts are unenforceable for statutory or common law illegality
  3. 3 Whether the Spreadex Agreement constituted acting as a betting intermediary

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was acting in the course of a business both in direct betting with the defendant and as a betting intermediary under the Spreadex Agreement, but statutory and common law illegality do not preclude enforcement of the debts under the Gambling Act 2005 or public policy. The contracts are enforceable and the claimant is entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to recover £65,629 (Debt 1) and £516,515 (Debt 2) as debts.
  • Claimant entitled to damages of £251,008 (Debt 3) and £8,368.25 (Debt 4).