Poker Player's Winnings Are Not Earnings For The Purposes Of Child Maintenance, Court Of Appeal Rules

After a four year dispute, the Court of Appeal has ruled that a professional poker player and former stockbroker, Tony Hakki, does not have to pay child maintenance because his winnings are not “earnings from gainful employment”.

Devrise Blair, the children’s mother, made an application to the Child Support Agency for an order that Mr Hakki pay child maintenance on the basis that gambling is a profession but he refused to do so.

At a previous hearing, the Judge ruled in favour of Ms Blair and found that Mr Hakki is “gainfully employed” as a “self-employed earner” and that therefore, he should pay child maintenance.

However on appeal, a panel of three Judges found that his poker playing does not fall within the definition of a “trade, profession or vocation” and that therefore his winnings do not constitute income from self-employment for the purposes of the The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations. Accordingly, a ruling was made in his favour.

Although it is unclear as to how much money Mr Hakki makes from his poker playing, it has been reported that he previously ran his own poker website; plays poker at the casino around four times per week and is ranked 4,440 on pokerpages.com.

In any event, he earns enough to support himself and it seems unjustifiable and unfair that he is able to avoid supporting his children through his potentially substantial gains.

Not agreeing to pay child maintenance from his winnings was one gamble that definitely paid off!