Man loses legal challenge after losing more than £90,000 on Kilmarnock bet
A man has lost a legal bid after gambling more than £90,000 on a game between Kilmarnock and Celtic
A PUNTER who lost more than £90,000 of his cash in an on line bet has lost a legal bid to have his case reviewed by a senior Scottish judge.
Gordon Shearer placed £92,476 with Betvictor during Celtic's clash against Kilmarnock on Christmas Eve 2011, according to a Court of Session judgement issued on Friday.
Mr Shearer claimed the 1/18 bet was for the Hoops to win the clash - the Glasgow side went onto beat the Ayrshire team 2-1.
However, the bookmakers said the wager was only for Celtic to win the second half of the match. The Bhoys drew the second half with Killie at 1-1.
The bookies then refused to pay out on the bet or refund Mr Shearer his original stake.
Mr Shearer, whose address hasn't been disclosed, appealed to the Independent Betting Ajudication Service Ltd in England.
In summer 2012, administrators at the service refused to grant Mr Shearer's appeal and ruled in favour of Betvictor.
Lawyers acting for Mr Shearer wanted judge Lord Boyd to give the go ahead for a judicial review into the IBAS's decision.
They told Lord Boyd that their client had "exhausted his funds" and "required to obtain legal aid" to take the case to the Court of Session.
However, Lord Boyd refused to grant permission to the request. He said that the IBAS was registered in England and that Scottish courts didn't have any jurisdiction over it.
In the written judgement, Lord Boyd stated: "I refuse permission to proceed. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has demonstrated that the second respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
"It is a company incorporated in England and having its place of business in England.
"The adjudication was carried out in England. Rule 2(l) of paragraph 8 of the Civil Jurisdictions and Judgements Act 1982 applies and provides that jurisdiction lies in the courts in the place where the company has its seat, ie England.
"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."