Dhir v Paddy Power (stolen money gambled, tracing) (High Court (Queen's Bench Division)): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

Dhir v Flutter Entertainment plc (Paddy Power) is a High Court (Queen's Bench Division) case, [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB), docket QB-2019-002771, filed in 2019. Businessman Amarjeet Singh Dhir sued Paddy Power to recover money he had lent to the gambler Tony Parente, who lost large sums with the bookmaker in 2015 and 2016.

Dhir pleaded tracing, knowing or unconscionable receipt and unjust enrichment. The case sits within Gambling Addiction Lawsuits because the judge made detailed findings about what the operator knew of a customer's harm.

Who is covered

The claimant was a third party, not the gambler. Dhir had advanced millions of dirhams to Parente and sought to follow that money into Paddy Power's hands.

The ruling matters most to creditors who lend to a person who gambles. It was decided in England and Wales, and it is a single-claimant case, not a class action. The defendant is part of the group covered under Flutter (Paddy Power, Sky Bet, Betfair) Lawsuits.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. The claim was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant, so Dhir received nothing.

A separate regulatory settlement with the Gambling Commission was GBP 2.2m: GBP 1.7m in lieu of a penalty plus GBP 0.5m divestment. GBP 265,606 and GBP 132,803 of it related to Parente, and the divested sum went to GamCare and Gordon Moody. That money did not go to Dhir or to any player.

What the court decided

Griffiths J found that Paddy Power knew Parente was gambling like a problem gambler and that his losses were unsustainable. The bookmaker nonetheless kept taking his stakes and giving him hospitality.

The claim still failed on 4 June 2021. Dhir was only a creditor and could not trace his money into Paddy Power's hands, so the claim failed.

As of 14 November 2026 the case is dismissed on that judgment. The findings about the operator's knowledge remain on the public record, and the limits of third-party recovery are the legal result.

Why it matters

The judgment is the clearest judicial record of an operator's knowledge of harm, and it also shows the limits of third-party recovery. A lender cannot reach the operator without tracing the funds.

For the grounds that have worked against casinos and sportsbooks, see Can You Sue a Casino or Sportsbook?.

Related cases

• Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair) is another English duty-of-care claim and is also recorded as dismissed.

Questions people ask

Did Paddy Power win Dhir v Paddy Power?

Yes. On 4 June 2021 Griffiths J dismissed the claim and gave judgment for the defendant, even though he found the operator knew of Parente's harmful gambling.

Can a lender recover money a gambler lost?

Not on these facts. Dhir was only a creditor and could not trace his money, so the claim failed. Whether other facts would succeed is not decided here.

Is there a claim form or settlement to file?

No. No settlement or fund exists, so there is no claim to file. Filing a settlement claim is free wherever one exists. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.