Gaming and Gambling Places in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Ene 1968

    He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. But in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one.

  • HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group
    • Chancery Division
    • 08 Jun 2009

    Like the Tribunal I would hold that the random generation of a number in a separate unit which serves various player terminals (which may themselves be running different games) is properly regarded as an external event and not one produced by the machine that the player is playing. Like the Tribunal I do not think it is possible to elaborate further.

  • Seay v Eastwood
    • House of Lords
    • 28 Jul 1976

    Legislation against, or controlling, gaming, wagering and betting is many centuries old in the United Kingdom. It is impossible to frame accurate definitions which can cover every such variety: attempts to do so may indeed be counter-productive, since each added precision merely provides an incentive to devise a variant which eludes it.

  • The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc
    • Court of Appeal
    • 30 Oct 2013

    If right so far, I also do not understand why the multi-terminal systems should be treated any differently. The fact that there is only one RNG serving several terminals cannot make a material difference. In substance, the systems are exactly the same as in both previous configurations. By like reasoning, I cannot see why each terminal and the single RNG do not together constitute a machine within section 26.

  • R William Hill Organization Ltd (Claimant) The Horserace Betting Levy Board (Defendant) The Association of British Bookmakers and Others (Interested Parties)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 Jul 2012

    The question posed by the statute is not whether, in the course of a business, a person receives bets. The question is whether he carries on the business of receiving bets. Someone who operates a betting shop, or who has a stand at a race meeting, receives bets there. His business is that of receiving bets. The person who operates through a betting exchange may in the course of doing so find himself receiving a bet. But he does not carry on the business of receiving bets.

  • Associated Leisure Ltd (Phonographic Equipment Company Ltd) v Associated Newspapers Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 May 1970

    But when the defendant seeks to plead justification at a late stage, his conduct will be closely enquired into. The Court will expect him to have shown due diligence in making his enquiries and investigations. The Court may well refuse him application if he has been guilty of delay or not made proper enquiries earlier. That case turned on its particular circumstances. That is why it was never reported. It is the case of O'Toole v. Chambers (unreported, 1924. O. No. 1743)

  • Shaw v Applegate
    • Court of Appeal
    • 25 Feb 1977

    So I do not, as at present advised, think it is clear that it is essential to find all the five tests set out by Mr. Justice Fry Literally applicable and satisfied in any particular case. The real test, as I say, I think must be whether upon the faster of the particular case the situation has become such that it would be dishonest, or unconceivable, for the plaintiff, of for the person having the right sought to be enforced, to continue to back to enforce it.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
  • Commercial And Dispute Resolution: Is It Time To Roll The Credits?
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 5 de Septiembre de 2007
    ...Carl Rohsler, head of the gambling team at Hammonds discusses an important feature ...) have provoked significant debate: on-line gaming, the issue of super-casinos, gaming machines and ... Courts might prove to be one of the few places within the UK that offshore operators might feel ......
  • Fraud, shift and cousenage
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Dentons
    • 27 de Noviembre de 2017
    When and how dishonesty needs to be shown following Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 - The Gaming Act of 1664 imposed a forfeit on anyone who won a wager or...
    ...... . The Gaming Act of 1664 imposed a forfeit on anyone who won a ...Its 21st century equivalent, the Gambling Act 2005, creates a rather more prosaic offence ...The gambler places a bet on one of those positions, and if the total ......
  • Fraud, Shift And Cousenage
    • Mondaq UK
    • 24 de Noviembre de 2017
    ...... The Gaming Act of 1664 imposed a forfeit on anyone who won a ...Its 21st century equivalent, the Gambling Act 2005, creates a rather more prosaic offence ...The gambler places a bet on one of those positions, and if the total ......
  • Financial Markets Disputes and Regulatory Update - January 2018 - Judgments
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Dentons
    • 16 de Enero de 2018
    Court of Appeal upholds consistent interpretation of ISDA Master Agreement - Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v. Comune di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428 - Dexia was appointed as Prato's advis...
    ...... out an offence of cheating under the Gambling Act 2005; and second, what the test for ...The gambler places a bet on one of those positions, and if the total ... of accounts tainted by abusive trading or "gaming". The judge found this to be a separate matter to ......
See all results