A GAMBLER who lost more than £92,000 betting on a Celtic match has failed in a bid to sue the bookmaker.
Gordon Shearer launched a legal action after claiming bookie Betvictor had blundered by failing to pay out on the bet.
He placed an online bet of £92,476 on Celtic to win a Scottish Premier League match against Kilmarnock at odds of 1/18. Mr Shearer claimed the bet was for Celtic to win the match over 90 minutes but Betvictor said he had only bet them to win the second half.
The Hoops won the game on 24 December, 2011 2-1 but only drew the second half 1-1.
The bookmaker, based in Gibraltar, refused to pay out or refund Mr Shearer’s stake. Had his bet been successful, he would have won £5,137.56
He then complained to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS), which rules over gambling disputes, but they twice ruled in favour of Betvictor.
After failing in a bid to get the Gibraltar Gambling Commission to overturn the decision, Mr Shearer then took his case to Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session.
He sought a judicial review of the IBAS decision and asked a judge to order Betvictor to return his stake and pay him his winnings.
However Lord Boyd of Duncansby has now thrown out his case because the IBAS is based in England and can’t be sued in a Scottish court.
In a written ruling, the judge said: “I have concluded that because the second respondent is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts that there are no real prospects of success.
“Even if it were to proceed the petitioner would face some formidable hurdles. The complaint made by the petitioner is that the second respondent’s decision is wrong in law.
“Having regard to the pleadings and the supporting material I agree that the issues raised are ones of mixed fact and law in a specialist area where the second respondent would be expected to apply a particular knowledge and expertise.
“Together with the decisions of the GCC and Gambling Commissioner in Gibraltar the matter has been considered on four separate occasions. On each occasion the decision had been adverse to the petitioner.”