https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2026/645.html&query=(solomon)+AND+(spence)
This is a judgement in the case where Alan Solomon sued millionaire Alan Spence for horse racing bets between them.
Any pro gambler should bookmark it as it is a complete wiki for all the tax issues about gambling (and also child support courtesy of Tony "the hitman" Hakki vs Secretary of state
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/530.html ).
between the legalese there are some interesting nuggets it's clear the judge doesn't suffer fools gladly.
In both his first statement and in cross-examination, the defendant gave elaborate details of his supposed relationship with a bookmaker called George.....
...The detail about George provided by the defendant is implausible and was, in my judgment, intended to lend credibility to a story which is entirely fictitious. There was no evidence as to how George knew the defendant, came to approach him at Goodwood or knew where he lived. It is improbable that the defendant would not have recalled George's full name or telephone number, particularly if, as the defendant said, George had given him a business card which he had later thrown away. There was no documentary evidence of George's acceptance of the bets or any other evidence of their meetings. In short, George did not exist and I find that the defendant's evidence about George was untruthful.
Author