Some will doubtless know this already but I was unaware of this until a law lecture the other evening. The lecture was on Equity and Trusts but the lecturer digressed and told us this.

Lets say you place a bet on Liverpool to win a match within 90 minutes and they do. You then go to collect your winnings and the bookies refuse to pay out. They have no grounds to refuse according to the bookies rules/T&C's etc. Despite this, there is no law whatsoever that you can use to force them into paying out.

It is in fact a matter of honour and it is the market that enforces it. This is because if a bookies refused to pay, word will quickly spread and they will lose business and also the local press could get wind of it and apply pressure etc etc.

I did not know this but being as it is highly unlikely to happen this is quality pointless knowledge but I thought I would share it anyway. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Last edited by dunroof on 1st Dec 2012 8:01 am. Edited 1 time in total

I DISAGREE WITH THE LECTURER - AND POINT THE DOCTOR IN THE DIRECTION OF THE "GREEN BOOK" WHEREIN THERE IS CASE PRECEDENT. (You are the student - go find and win some Brownie points)

Provided of course, you as the Gambler have indeed retained the "contract" that was establish between you and the "Bookmaker" i.e the Betting Slip with the pertinent data.

Leave it with me.....He says LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Athelstan, I did some digging and found this handy section of the Gambling Act 2005: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/335

I have emailed a link to my lecturer to ask for his thoughts and to make sure I didn't misunderstand.

As for the "Green Book", the law reports can be handily accessed by a database called Westlaw. I found the above section and if any cases have been to court and duly reported on that issue, results will appear in the cases citing section.

There are zero so no precedents in the courts but the statute seems pretty clear to me. I will post again when he replies  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

All very interesting but who in their right mind would bet on Liverpool wining 

MANUFAN wrote:

All very interesting but who in their right mind would bet on Liverpool wining 

Fair enough. Perhaps bet on Man City winning at Old Trafford

Not a City fan by the way. In fact I only follow England, not into footy enough to be honest. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

The Doctor wrote:

As for the "Green Book", the law reports can be handily accessed by a database called Westlaw. I found the above section and if any cases have been to court and duly reported on that issue, results will appear in the cases citing section.

Indeed you can (pleased to see that further education is not being wasted) and you will find a punter being awarded damages against well known high street bookmaker for failing to honour the "wager" (contract) between the two parties.

A different perspective upon it, but one which has been raised before the courts, is that it is incontestable for a registered Lottery to refuse to pay out on what is equally a gambling debt to the holder of an official ticket (albeit mutilated) bearing the exact matching winning numbers and date of the draw. This is not the often confused matter of "honour" - it is a breach of a legal contract entered freely and willingly into by both parties. (the ticket was verified and validated by counsel for the Claimant following a forensic examination of the lottery organisers IT retailing systems database)

To ensue, whereas other appease in litigation, you have to predeterminate - to become a Rottweiler

ps: ask your Lecturer if he knows of "Sooty" - no not the glove puppet but locally in legal fraternity

Athelstan, I am off Uni for 3 weeks now for Easter but he did send me a quick email about this. Basically he was referring to the position at the time of a case that cropped up during the lecture. Since the Gambling Act 2005, it is no longer a simple agreement that cannot be enforced. The old law was repealed and it is now seen as a contract just the same as any other.

Makes sense anyway. It is very harsh to not have any legal backing and instead relying on honour and the market to sort it out

 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

You see, this Owd Grey Head still has it in there somewhere - it's finding it that's the problem. But this is usually resolved quickly and efficiently through the course of 3 or 4 pints of beer back in a Derbyshire Pub.

Off for 3 WEEKS - I trust that you will be spending that time wisely: wine, women and song

athelstan wrote:

You see, this Owd Grey Head still has it in there somewhere - it's finding it that's the problem. But this is usually resolved quickly and efficiently through the course of 3 or 4 pints of beer back in a Derbyshire Pub.

Off for 3 WEEKS - I trust that you will be spending that time wisely: wine, women and song

Indeed Sir

Just out of interest, I found the authority that the lecturer was on about before the days of the Gambling Act 2005. Basically S.18 of the Gambling Act 1845 was still in force when the House of Lords heard the case of Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 A.C. 548

Lord Goff of Chieveley stated as follows:

"There is nothing unlawful about accepting bets at a casino; the only relevant consequence of the transactions being gambling transactions is that they are void. In other words, the transactions as such give rise to no legal obligations. Neither the gambler, nor the casino, can go to court to enforce a gaming transaction. That is the legal position. But the practical or business position is that, if a casino does not pay winnings when they are due, it will simply go out of business. So the obligation in honour to pay winnings is an obligation which, in business terms, the casino has to comply with."

Same applied to bookies until the new legislation  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Doc - legislation is only enforceable provide it is, and remains, "current".

Many a wise word has been spoken by the Honourable Gentlemen of our nation, but their wisdom has currency only if it retains its legality. Be aware of what has gone before, cultivate the present, and, prepare for change. Then you'll be able to deliver that fatal refute to opposing learned counsel.

Yes I know. The Gambling Act 1845 was current until it was repealed by the Gambling Act 2005. So back when the above case was decided, the position was still one of honour. i.e it could not be enforced legally so luckily parliament saw sense with the new legislation  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

The Doctor wrote:

Yes I know. The Gambling Act 1845 was current until it was repealed by the Gambling Act 2005. So back when the above case was decided, the position was still one of honour. i.e it could not be enforced legally so luckily parliament saw sense with the new legislation

Since when has The Commons ever seen sense, and The Lords, well they've never had any in the first place.

The chronology of the merit of my advocacy:
25th 12:38hrs Lecturer states with opacity a position that's no longer applies.
I refute at 7:53pm offering all is not a wager of honour.
The Rhodesian ridgeback ensues the following day 26th 6:38pm elaborating the present.
Lecturer and pupil offer a defence at 7:39pm based on a repealed non-binding Act.
The ridgeback feasts on being awarded judgement the next day 27th 7:01am
Council holds press conference late in the day 27th 6:27pm to deflect further examination.
Athelstan's Chambers' turn down lucrative offers of Film and Book exclusives of the case - instead goes for a pint or three Marstons Pedigree. Cheers



Doc - just light hearted early evening fun

Apologies Athelstan for any confusion, I should explain.

The original post is entirely wrong. I had misunderstood what the lecturer said. In class he spoke of honour enforcing the agreement back in 1991 when the above case was decided (that was the case discussed in class). I thought he meant it was still the position today.

The Gambling Act 2005 shows quite clearly that they can be enforced. I simply brought up that case by way of showing what was the authority before the new legislation and what the case was that cropped up in class.

I hope that clears it up. I did like the Ridgeback reference though. Lovely dogs, we had one but he died 10 years ago this July.

Cheers  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey