Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Top Ten Promotions Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Lord Upjohn,Lord Donovan,Lord Wilberforce |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] UKHL J0625-2 |
| Date | 25 June 1969 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1969] UKHL J0625-2
House of Lords
Lord Reid
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Lord Upjohn
Lord Donovan
Lord Wilberforce
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Top Ten Promotions Limited, et è contra, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 28th, Tuesday the 29th and Wednesday the 30th. days of April last, as on Thursday the 1st, Monday the 5th and Tuesday the 6th, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise, of King's Beam House, Mark Lane, E.C.3, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 27th of May 1968, so far as regards the words, "It is Ordered that this appeal be allowed and that part of the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lyell which adjudged and declared as aforesaid be varied, and that the parts of the said Judgment which adjudged that the Plaintiffs recover against the Defendants their costs of the claim to be taxed, be set aside and that in lieu thereof no order be made as to such costs. It is further Ordered that there be no order as to costs of the appeal", might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Top Ten Promotions Limited, whose registered office is situate at Brunel House, St. George's Road, Bristol, 1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 27th of May 1968, so far as regards the words. "It is Ordered that the part of the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lyell which adjudged and declared as aforesaid be varied by directing that Judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and a declaration made on the claim that the amount on which pool betting duty payable by the Defendants is to be computed under the Betting Duties Act 1963 as amended by Section 7 subsection 2 of the Finance Act 1964 included in addition to the stake money such part of the sums paid by members of the Spastic League Club to Regional Pool Promotions Limited as is expended or retained by Regional Pool Promotions Limited by way of expenses or profits of Regional Pool Promotions Limited attributable to activities undertaken by Regional Pool Promotions Limited for Regional Club Organisation Limited or for the said Spastic League Club and that no order be made as to such costs or on the counterclaim. It is further ordered that there be no order as to the costs of the appeal", might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Cross Appeal or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Top Ten Promotions Limited; and also upon the Case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, lodged in the said Original and Cross Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in these Appeals:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 27th day of May 1968, in part complained of in the said Original and Cross Appeals, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lyell, of the 9th day of June 1967, thereby Varied, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents in the Original Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants in the Original Appeal the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal, and also the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Original Appeal to this House, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is further Ordered, That the said Cross Appeal be, and the same is hereby Dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants in the Cross Appeal do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents in the Cross Appeal the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal, and also the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Cross Appeal to this House, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
I agree with the speeches of my noble and learned friends, Lord Donovan, and Lord Wilberforce, and I would only add that a limited meaning may also have to be given to the words "connected therewith". But here I think that the Club's activity of spending its money on gifts and prizes for its members was on any view connected with the promotion of the betting because it appears that in fact the prospect of obtaining these gifts or prizes was a substantial inducement to members of the public to subscribe their shillings to both parts of the scheme. I would therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
My Lords,
Pool betting duty was first introduced in 1947. It was imposed by the Finance (No. 2) Act of that year. Bets were deemed to be made by way of pool betting whenever a number of persons made bets on terms that the winnings would be (or be a share of or be determined by reference to) the stake moneys that they paid. The duty was payable either by the operator of a totalisator or in the case of other bets by the promoter. In relation to pool betting the promoter is the person to whom those making the bets look for the payment of any winnings.
A promoter would have expenses and he would expect to earn a profit. In the ordinary course of things these would come out of the stake money as, of course, would the pool betting duty and the winnings. It became to be realised that the amount both of the stake money and of the duty payable could be reduced if in some way a fund could be provided which would cover expenses and profits so that they need not be attributable to or be a charge upon the stake money. Thus there could be some sort of organisation or Club which those who took part in pool betting could join or to which they would contribute and expenses and profits could be made the responsibility of such organisation or Club. The stake money could be reduced and benefits could accrue from joining the organisation or Club: the arrangements might be more attractive than under more orthodox but less imaginative schemes. By way of example, if members of the public paid 1s. 0d. per week it might be arranged that by so doing they were paying so much as stake money and paying the remainder partly to charities and partly to join an organisation or Club, the membership of which could be made to be profitable: it could then be arranged that all expenses would be payable by the organisation or Club.
Certain changes were made by various Acts. Thus, by section 4 (1) of the Finance Act, 1952, it was provided that for the purposes of section 6 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 (and of the Fifth Schedule to that Act), any bet is to be deemed to be made by way of pool betting unless it is a bet at fixed odds. Furthermore, by section 4 subsection (5) it was provided that for the purposes of pool betting duty any payment which entitles a person to make a bet by way of pool betting is (if he makes the bet) to be treated as stake money on the bet. If those who took part in pool betting also joined some organisation or Club that provision might be countered by making a rule to the effect that membership of the organisation or Club was not a condition of "entry on the pool" and that the pool was not restricted to members of the organisation or Club.
The legislative changes which gave rise to the issues raised in this litigation are those made by section 7 of the Finance Act, 1964. They must have been introduced with knowledge of the possible schemes and procedures to which I have referred. A consideration of the early words of subsection (2) shows that the general purpose of it was to provide that pool betting duty was to be computed on an amount which would include not only the stake money but also the expenses and profits of the promoter and, furthermore, the expenses and profits of various other persons unless those expenses and profits were provided for out of the stake money or unless they could be excluded by being shown to be referable to matters other than the promotion and management of the betting or other than activities ancillary to the promotion and management of the betting or other than activities connected with the promotion and management of the betting. The amount on which pool betting duty was to be computed was, therefore, in the first place liable to be considerably expanded over and above the amount of the stake money unless by satisfying the statutory wording that process could be avoided.
The essential facts to which the issues in this case relate are not and have not been in dispute. The case proceeded to trial on an agreed statement of facts. I find no need to summarise them. They are lucidly referred to in the careful judgment of the learned Judge. The only issues in the case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheila Winder and Others v Sandwell Metropolitan and Another The Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener)
...caution: the difficulties and dangers of resorting to the common usage of words are well-recognised (see, e.g., Customs and Excise Commissioners v Top Ten Promotions Limited [1969] 1 WLR 1163 at 1171 per Lord Upjohn). Recently, in construing another residence requirement (albeit in a very ......
-
G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Legal Costs)
...3 WLR 586, CA. Coombs v Coombs (1866) 1 LR PD 218. Cross v Cross (1880) 43 LT 533. Customs and Excise Comrs v Top Ten Promotions Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 39, [1969] 1 WLR 1163, HL. F v F (divorce: annulment of bankruptcy order) [1994] 2 FCR 689, [1994] 1 FLR 359. F v F (maintenance pending suit)......
-
G v G
...judgment in such a case the approach to words as described by Lord Upjohn in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Top Ten Promotions Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1163 at 1171 is relevant and applicable. 47 The husband seeks to apply the Barras principle to the use in s. 1 of the 1970 Act (and then s. 22 ......
-
The Information Commissioner GIA 177 2014
...here that Lord Hoffmann’s warning echoed the observations of Lord Upjohn in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Top Ten Promotions Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1163; [1969] 3 All ER 39 (at 1171): “It is highly dangerous, if not impossible, to attempt to place an accurate definition upon a word in common......