The casino did not pay out the £7.7m he had won, as they believed Ivey had cheated by using edge sorting.
Both Ivey and the casino agreed that the contract contained an implied term forbidding cheating.
At trial, High Court Judge John Mitting held that cheating had occurred and the contract was thus invalid.
The Supreme Court held that Ivey was not entitled to the payment sought from Genting Casinos because he was dishonest.
[3][4] David Ormerod and Karl Laird criticised the direction of the law following Ivey, arguing that the lack of a subjective element will lead to uncertainty and a possible human rights challenge under Article 7, citing a prior challenge to Ghosh.