William Hill Organization Ltd v Horserace Betting Levy Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Davis
Business customers of betting exchanges did not receive or negotiate bets so were not bookmakers for the purposes of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and, therefore, were not liable to pay the horserace betting levy.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of William Hill Organization Ltd against the decision of Lord Justice Stanley BurntonWLR ([2012] 1 WLR 3504) to dismiss its application for Judicial review of a decision by the Horserace Betting Levy Board that customers of betting exch anges were not required to pay the horserace betting levy pursuant to section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board was responsible for collecting a levy which by section 27(2)(a) of the 1963 Act was only payable by a "bookmaker", defined in section 55 as "any person … who … carries on … the business of receiving or negotiating bets".
The board made a decision that customers of betting exchanges were not "bookmakers" for the purposes of section 27(2)(a) and so were not required to pay the levy. The claimant, who was the largest operator of betting shops in the United Kingdom, sought Judicial review of the board's decision on the ground that it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the 1963 Act.
The first interested party, the Association of British Bookmakers, supported the claimant's claim. The second interested party, TSE (Gibraltar) LP (trading as Betfair), which was the leading betting exchange in the UK, supported the decision of the board.
Ms Dinah Rose, QC, Mr Ben Jaffey and Ms Jessica Boyd for the claimant; Lord Pannick, QC, Mr Michael Fordham, QC and Mr Fraser Campbell for the board; Mr David Anderson, QC and Mr Oliver Jones for the second interested party. The first interested party did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE MOSES said that the question was whether the statutory definition of bookmaker was broad enough to encompass those who entered into a bet on a betting exchange.
To limit the scope of the statutory definition to those who operated the exchange...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Advising the president: the growing scope of executive power to protect America.
...957 F. Supp. 2d 1, 43-44 (D.D.C. 2013). (118.) See Jennifer Stisa Granick & Christopher Jon Sprigman, The Criminal N.S.A., N.Y. TIMES, June 27, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/thecriminaI-nsa.html?pagewanted=alI&_r=0 [http://perma.cc/A4S7-RHTU] ("Through a series of ......
-
PROSECUTION IN PUBLIC, PROSECUTION IN PRIVATE.
...as "one of the pillars of [his] campaign"). (91) J. David Goodman, City Council Votes to Increase Oversight of New York Police, N.Y. TIMES (June 27, 2013), htttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/nyregion/new-york-city-council-votes-to-increase-oversiglit-of-police-dept.html [https://perma.cc/W4......