Poker Player Wins Court Battle - "Declines To Support His Children"
 

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/poker-p...s-court-battle

"A professional poker player who "declines to support his children" has won a legal fight after arguing that his winnings are not "earnings from gainful employment".

Court of Appeal judges have ruled in Tony Hakki's favour after the children's mother - Devrise Blair - asked the Child Support Agency to order him to pay maintenance.

Ms Blair argued that gambling was Mr Hakki's "trade or profession" and compared him to a professional sportsman.

But the Court of Appeal concluded that Mr Hakki's poker playing was not sufficiently organised for it to amount to a trade, business or profession within the regulations governing the payment of child support.

Three appeal judges have issued a written ruling after analysing the case at a hearing in London in March.

Judges said Mr Hakki had played poker for many years and was known in the "poker community" as "Tony the Hitman Hakki". They said he had been a financial broker who had been made redundant in 1998 when in his mid-40s.

Their ruling did not say how many children Mr Hakki had with Ms Blair - and did not give any details of the relationship.

"(Mr Hakki) is a professional poker player in the sense that he supports himself from his winnings at poker. He declines to support his children and the mother has made an application to the Child Support Agency for an order that he pay child support maintenance," said one appeal judge, Lord Justice Longmore, in the ruling.

"He opposes the application on the ground that his poker winnings do not constitute 'earnings' from gainful employment.

"This depends on the true construction of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations."

He added: " On the facts found I do not consider that it can be said that Mr Hakki had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade (or a business) let alone a profession or a vocation."

Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Pitchford agreed.

The Appeal Court ruling was the latest stage of a legal dispute stretching back more than four years.

Mr Hakki asked appeal judges to analyse the case after a tribunal judge decided that he could be said to be "gainfully employed" as a "self-employed earner".

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/poker-p...s-court-battle

Regardless of whether or not he is in gainful employment it says a lot about his character that he does not at least support his children. I wonder is the state picking up that tab.

why is he hiding under that hood

That is for real?

What state exactly?

A lot of poker players like to hide their face when and where possible. Eliminates tells.

Not that this really applies in this case, but just sayin'...

https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...5uc4o1_400.gif

Seriously. What a dirtbag..

Interesting point that, I guess also depends which country/religion they're being judged by. For pro-life the lady is a murderer, so is worse than the deadbeat father, as at least he didn't kill his own child. Whereas the pro-life will say she is a normal person and he is a deadbeat, when really they both have a lot in common.

Interesting point ???..

bitch want his money, this way he can spend money just on him!

You don't know if he is a bad father or a good one. I can think of a couple people I know personally who are good dads and totally get raped by the child support system. Way she goes.

So, what does Phil Laak have to do with this article??