Click the case name for better results:

Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited: CA 23 Oct 2003

The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had been loaded, but they had not. Held: An inspector certifying the goods should … Continue reading Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited: CA 23 Oct 2003

Regina v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex Parte Benaim: CA 23 Mar 1970

A Gaming Club, Crockfords, sought the restoration of its gaming licence. It had historically found ways of circumventing the earlier Gaming Acts restrictions. The 1968 Act created the Gaming Board to assess their probity. They challenged the refusal saying that the hearing had not observed the rules of natural justice.Lord Denning MR said: ‘Seeing the … Continue reading Regina v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex Parte Benaim: CA 23 Mar 1970

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

William Hill Organisation Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board and Others: CA 3 May 2013

The court was asked whether business customers of betting exchanges may be required to pay a horse race betting levy. If they are bookmakers within the meaning of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, then the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the respondent, is entitled to impose a levy on them. Customers of a betting … Continue reading William Hill Organisation Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board and Others: CA 3 May 2013

Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation: CA 1971

The court hear an appeal to quarter sessions against a licensing decision taken by a local authority. The application was rejected by the local authority against whose decision an appeal lay to the Quarter Sessions. The Recorder allowed the appeal and the City Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal Held: (Majority) Where an appellate … Continue reading Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation: CA 1971

In re Trepca Mines (No 2): CA 1962

Champerty: Lord Denning MR said: ‘The reason why the common law condemns champerty is because of the abuses to which it may give rise. The common law fears that the champertous maintainer might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses. These fears may … Continue reading In re Trepca Mines (No 2): CA 1962

Ganton House Investments v Crossman Investments: 1995

When assessing a new rent under the Act, the the value of the premises attributable to the obtaining of a license under the 1963 Act is to be disregarded. Citations: [1995] 1 EGLR 239 Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34(1)(d), Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 Landlord and Tenant Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Ganton House Investments v Crossman Investments: 1995

William Hill Organization Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board and Others: Admn 20 Jul 2012

A person or body entering into betting transactions on an Internet betting exchange in the course of his business was not thereby a bookmaker for the purposes of the 1983 Act. Judges: Lord Justice Stanley Burnton Citations: [2012] EWHC 2039 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 3504, [2012] WLR(D) 221, [2013] 1 All ER 109 Links: Bailii, … Continue reading William Hill Organization Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board and Others: Admn 20 Jul 2012

Sporting Options Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horserace Betting Levy Board: Admn 31 Jul 2003

The claimant sought judicial review of the rate of levy set by the respondent, saying that they operated a new kind of system which was treated unfairly. Held: The procedure followed in settling the levy was unsatisfactory. The claimant would be adversely affected by the structure proposed, but had not been allowed a proper part … Continue reading Sporting Options Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horserace Betting Levy Board: Admn 31 Jul 2003