- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 26 Jul 2018 · read from the court record
- Court
- UK Supreme Court (on appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 457; [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB)) · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- [2018] UKSC 43
- Judge
- Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Briggs
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Individual suit, casino patron and jackpot disputes
- Money
- casino's net loss GBP 802,940 (including gaming duty) not recovered; cheque-cashing facility GBP 800,000 from 13 Oct 2010, raised to GBP 1.25m; bank reference covered GBP 1.6m
- 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
The Playboy Club granted customer Hassan Barakat a GBP 1.25m cheque-cashing facility after its agent obtained a bank reference from BNL, which had no basis; his cheques bounced and the club lost GBP 802,940. The Supreme Court held on 26 July 2018 that the bank owed no duty to the undisclosed casino, so the loss stayed with the club.
What this case is about
Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA v Playboy Club London Ltd, [2018] UKSC 43, is a UK Supreme Court case in which a casino tried to blame a bank for losses on a customer's bounced cheques. It is one of the credit disputes within Casino Patron Lawsuits.
The Playboy Club granted customer Hassan Barakat a cheque-cashing facility of GBP 800,000 from 13 October 2010, later raised to GBP 1.25m. Its agent had obtained a bank reference from BNL covering GBP 1.6m, which the summary says the bank had no basis to give. The claim was negligent misstatement (Hedley Byrne).
Who is covered
The parties are the casino companies and the bank. The case does not cover a class of players.
Its reasoning reaches casinos in England and Wales that rely on third-party credit references. Other UK matters appear under Gambling Lawsuits in United Kingdom.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case for players. The casino's net loss of GBP 802,940, including gaming duty, was not recovered from the bank.
There is no fund, administrator or claim form. The case concerns a loss between businesses, not a consumer claim.
What the court decided
As of 14 November 2026 the case is closed on a final judgment. The Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Briggs) decided it on 26 July 2018, on appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 457 and [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB).
The court held that the bank owed no duty to the undisclosed casino. The loss therefore stayed with the club.
The record shows Barakat's cheques bounced, which created the loss. It does not state the date the claim was filed.
Why it matters
The ruling is a precedent on negligent misstatement and credit references. A casino that extends large credit on a reference given without knowledge of its existence cannot count on recovering from the referee.
For how courts treat money disputes between casinos and customers more broadly, see Can You Sue a Casino or Sportsbook That Refuses to Pay.
Related cases
- Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi: a casino credit judgment.
- Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Yu: another casino credit judgment.
Questions people ask
How much did the Playboy Club lose?
The casino's net loss was GBP 802,940, including gaming duty. The Supreme Court held on 26 July 2018 that the bank did not have to pay it.
Why did the bank not owe the casino a duty?
The court held that the bank owed no duty to the undisclosed casino that relied on its reference.
Was Hassan Barakat a party to the case?
No. He is the customer whose cheques bounced. The parties were the Playboy Club companies and BNL.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Playboy Club London Ltd and associated companies
| Defendants | Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA |
|---|---|
| Judge | Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Briggs |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows casino's net loss GBP 802,940 (including gaming duty) not recovered; cheque-cashing facility GBP 800,000 from 13 Oct 2010, raised to GBP 1.25m; bank reference covered GBP 1.6m.
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
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 Jul 2018 | 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, facts, disposition | caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases 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 |
| Les Ambassadeurs v Yu (GBP 19m cheques, GBP 10m judgment) | Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on appeal from Mr Peter Marquand sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, [2021] EWHC 1443 (QB) | 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.