Bettor wins case against Casino de Namur 

Casino de Namur has been ordered by the Liège Court of First Instance to pay €9,250 to a player after cancelling three winning sports bets. 

Three winning bets Casino de Namur refused to pay 

On 19 August 2026, the Liège Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the player in his dispute with Gambling Management SA, the company that operates the Namur casino. 

According to information revealed by La Dernière Heure on 8 October 2026, the casino had refused to pay him the winnings from three bets placed on the Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix, held in April 2025. 

The court ordered the company to pay €9,250 in net winnings, plus late-payment interest and around €1,200 in legal costs. 

An unusual set of odds at the heart of the dispute 

It all began on 1 April 2025. A 48-year-old player living in Walloon Brabant visited the Grand Casino de Namur, located on the banks of the Meuse. A keen sports bettor, he was interested in the Japanese Grand Prix, scheduled to take place a few days later at the Suzuka Circuit. 

Weather forecasts at the time suggested a significant risk of rain. The player was not trying to predict the winner of the race. Instead, he focused on a specific question: would a red flag be shown during the Grand Prix? In Formula 1, a red flag requires the race to be stopped and the drivers to return to the pits. 

Grégoire decided to bet on there being no red flag. One detail caught his attention in particular: the odds offered were 4.70 to 1, whereas they would normally be below 2 to 1. Convinced that the bet offered value, he placed three wagers using the casino’s betting terminals: two bets of €900 and a third of €700. In total, he staked €2,500. 

On 6 April 2025, Grégoire watched the Japanese Grand Prix on television from 5 a.m. Belgian time. The expected rain ultimately did not disrupt the race and no red flag was shown. His three bets were therefore winners. 

At odds of 4.70, the total expected payout amounted to €11,750, including the original €2,500 stake and €9,250 in profit. However, when he returned to the casino the following Tuesday, he discovered that his three tickets were not recognised as winners. They were marked “bet cancelled”. 

The casino only agreed to refund his original stakes, amounting to €2,500. The €9,250 in winnings remained unpaid. 

Why did the casino cancel the bets? 

The casino based its decision on Article 3.8 of Gambling Management SA’s general terms and conditions. This provision allows a bet to be cancelled in the event of an obvious error in the odds. 

In other words, the casino considered that the odds offered on there being no red flag justified cancelling the three bets. 

The player disagreed with that interpretation. In his view, the bets had been accepted by the casino’s terminals and validated normally. He therefore argued that the casino could not reverse its commitment after the outcome of the race was known. 

Liège court rules in favour of the bettor 

Assisted by his lawyers, Grégoire took the case to court and challenged, among other things, the validity of the contractual provision relied upon by the operator. He asked for Article 3.8 to be declared void because he considered it unfair under the Belgian Code of Economic Law. 

On 19 August 2026, the first chamber of the Liège Civil Court delivered its ruling. According to details of the judgment reported by La Dernière Heure, the court found that Gambling Management SA could not cancel the three bets after they had been validated, particularly without informing the player beforehand. The court also noted that the tickets had been properly registered on a terminal that showed no IT malfunction. 

The company, which did not appear at the hearing despite having been properly summoned, was ordered to pay the claimed net winnings. 

The amount awarded includes: 

• €9,250 in unpaid winnings; 
• late-payment interest; 
• around €1,200 in summons costs and procedural compensation. 

The original €2,500 in stakes had already been refunded. 

Player criticises lack of protection for bettors 

Beyond the money, Grégoire says he is fighting on principle. He believes players can find themselves in a particularly difficult position when an operator refuses to pay disputed winnings. 

Speaking to La Dernière Heure, he said: 

“The decision shows that an ordinary player can win.” 

The bettor also questioned the role of the Belgian Gaming Commission, which he says he contacted without obtaining a satisfactory outcome. 

According to his account, the Commission considered the case to be a commercial dispute rather than a breach of gambling legislation. He criticises that position, arguing that winning players should also receive effective protection when dealing with operators. 

“Who protects players against abuse by operators when they refuse to pay out a bet?” 

Casino de Namur appeals: what happens next? 

Despite the ruling against it, Gambling Management SA does not intend to end the legal proceedings. The company operating Casino de Namur has decided to take the dispute to the Liège Court of Appeal. 

“We wish to reserve our arguments for the Liège Court of Appeal,” the company said.