- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 8 Oct 2009 · read from the court record
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · Appellate court
- Docket
- [2009] EWCA Civ 1109; A2/2009/0089; HQ08X01090
- Judge
- Wilson LJ (lead), Pill LJ, Hooper LJ (CA); Blair J below (judgment 18 Dec 2008)
- Filed
- 2008
- Type
- Individual suit, casino patron and jackpot disputes
- Money
- judgment for GBP 240,500 plus interest upheld
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
A bank manager lent about GBP 7m over five years to a wealthy gambler at Les Ambassadeurs Club, mostly at night and with a 10 per cent fee. The gambler argued the loans were irrecoverable under the Gaming Act 1892 and unenforceable as unlicensed consumer credit. The Court of Appeal held on 8 October 2009 that loans for future gambling are caught only if stipulated to be used for gambling, that the lending was not a business, and upheld judgment for GBP 240,500.
What this case is about
Al Tamimi v Khodari, [2009] EWCA Civ 1109 (A2/2009/0089; HQ08X01090), is a Court of Appeal (Civil Division) case about whether money lent to a gambler at a casino can be recovered. It is part of the group of Casino Patron Lawsuits that deal with credit and debts.
Mohamad Khodari, a bank manager, lent about GBP 7m over five years to Fahad Al Tamimi at Les Ambassadeurs Club, mostly at night and with a 10 per cent fee. Al Tamimi argued the loans were irrecoverable under the Gaming Act 1892 and unenforceable as unlicensed consumer credit.
Who is covered
This is a private dispute between a lender and a gambler. The judgment does not create a class or a fund.
The legal points reach anyone in England and Wales who lends money to a person who then gambles. Other UK matters appear under Gambling Lawsuits in United Kingdom.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case for players. The money at stake was a debt owed by the gambler to the lender, and the court upheld a judgment of GBP 240,500 plus interest in the lender's favor.
No fund, administrator or claim form exists, so no other player has anything to claim.
What the court decided
As of 14 November 2026 the case is closed on appeal. Blair J gave judgment at first instance on 18 December 2008, and the Court of Appeal (Wilson LJ, Pill LJ and Hooper LJ) decided on 8 October 2009.
The court held that loans for future gambling are caught by section 1 of the Gaming Act 1892 only when it is stipulated that they will be used for gambling.
It also held that the lending was not a business under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, so sections 40 and 140A did not help the gambler.
Why it matters
The decision is a precedent on when a private loan to a gambler can be enforced. It narrows the Gaming Act 1892 defence to loans with a stipulated gambling purpose.
For the other side of casino money disputes, where a player claims money from the house, see Can You Sue a Casino or Sportsbook That Refuses to Pay.
Related cases
- Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi: another judgment involving the same club.
Questions people ask
Was the casino sued in this case?
No. The claimant was the lender, Mohamad Khodari, and the defendant was the gambler, Fahad Al Tamimi, who had borrowed at Les Ambassadeurs Club.
How much did the court order the gambler to pay?
The Court of Appeal upheld a judgment of GBP 240,500 plus interest on 8 October 2009.
Does the Gaming Act 1892 make all gambling loans void?
No. The court held that loans for future gambling are caught only if it is stipulated that they will be used for gambling.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Mohamad Khodari (lender, bank manager)
| Defendants | Fahad Al Tamimi (gambler) |
|---|---|
| Judge | Wilson LJ (lead), Pill LJ, Hooper LJ (CA); Blair J below (judgment 18 Dec 2008) |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows judgment for GBP 240,500 plus interest upheld.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008 | Filed |
| 8 Oct 2009 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| judgment and figures | caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
1 case in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Les Ambassadeurs v Albluewi (GBP 2m cheques, freezing order discharged) | High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.