A gambler known as the 'Fat Man' found a winning hand today in his legal battle over a £2 million loss he ran up in one night at a casino.

Fouad al-Zayat, a Middle Eastern businessman, won his appeal over a High Court ruling that he must pay up because he had no realistic defence if the case went to trial.

Now the gambler will have to convince a judge that the cheque he gave Aspinall’s Club in London, which he claimed had not been dated, was an unlawful provision of credit under the terms of the Gaming Act.

He claims that Aspinall’s therefore cannot enforce the debt.

Lord Justice Sedley, in one of the rulings of the three judges who allowed the appeal, said: “Piqued at the club’s failure to change a croupier, Mr al-Zayat, although he was undoubtedly good for the amount, dishonoured a cheque for £2 million which he owed Aspinall’s for gaming chips.

“Aspinall’s, instead of burning their bridges with Mr al-Zayat by suing him on his cheque, permitted him for another six years to go on gambling so that he could lose millions more pounds to them.

“Then, at the last permissible minute, they sued him.”

The judge said he would allow the appeal but said it was one of those cases “which have everything to do with law and nothing to do with justice”.

Lord Justice Lloyd said Mr al-Zayat, who in the course of 12 years as a member of Aspinall’s lost £23 million, had an arguable case that Aspinall’s acceptance of the cheque was an unlawful offer of credit.

He said the biggest loss was on March 10, 2000, when he drew four successive house cheques for a total of £2 million of gaming tokens and lost the lot.

The gambler asked for a change of croupiers but was told there was none available.

But at 3.30am he found out there had been croupiers who could have taken over, became angry and demanded the return of the house cheques.

Mr al-Zayat claims Aspinall’s agreed to accept his own cheque for the house cheques on the understanding that it would not be presented until their dispute was settled.

The gambler then told his bank not to honour the cheque and claimed in court it represented credit which is unlawful under the Gaming Act.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers