An application for a bingo hall license can be heard before the hall itself is built. The application is submitted with plans for the building, and if the building does not conform, the license will be invalid. Judges: Justice Sedley Citations: Times 05-Apr-1996 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 Sch 2 Licensing Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Regina v Gaming Licensing Committee Ex Parte Gala Leisure Ltd: QBD 5 Apr 1996
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
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
Cheques to buy gambling chips were drawn on a bank which, to the knowledge of the punter but not of the club, did not exist. The gambler said that the cheques amounted to the giving of credit under the Act and that the transactions were void. Held: The instruments were cheques and that the non-existence … Continue reading Aziz v Mayfair Casinos Ltd: 30 Jun 1982
Judges: Gibbs J Citations: [2006] EWHC 1018 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Licensing Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.241741
The claimant had sued the defendant for non-payment under a cheque for andpound;2 million. The cheque had been issued to replace earlier cheques given but not met, for sums staked for gambling at the claimant’s casino. The defendant said that the contract breached the prohibition of credit for gambling. Held: The defendant appealed against summary … Continue reading Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat: CA 19 Oct 2007
Taxation – whether gaming or betting and the different VAT Treatment of newer gaming machines. Citations: [2012] UKUT 347 (TCC), [2013] STC 420 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: At VDT (1) – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs VDT 27-May-2008 VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Gaming – Mechanised cash bingo under Gaming … Continue reading HMRC v The Rank Group Plc: UTTC 4 Oct 2012
A right to exchange gaming token was no offence, and nor was allowing the accumulation of prizes. Citations: Times 22-Nov-1995 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 34(3) 34(8) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd HL 2-Apr-1998 Prizes from gaming machines which were limited to prizes of six pounds per … Continue reading Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: CACD 22 Nov 1995
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice departing from the legislative provisions – ‘Due diligence’ defence Citations: C-260/10, [2011] EUECJ C-260/10 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Citing: At VDT … Continue reading Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Rank Group plc C-260/10: ECJ 10 Nov 2011
FTTTx Community Law – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Exclusion of provision of ‘gaming machines’ from exemption – Whether taxed machines similar to exempt machines – Relevance of regulatory regime – TNT [2009] STC 1438 considered – Whether FOBTs exempt comparators – Whether on facts due diligence defence established to breach of fiscal neutrality Exemption- … Continue reading The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Dec 2009
The court was asked whether the VAT treatment of mechanised cash bingo breaches the principle of fiscal neutrality: and the core issue on the appeal is whether the burden lay on Rank to adduce evidence to prove not only that there was a difference in VAT treatment between similar (and apparently competing) products but also … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group: ChD 8 Jun 2009
The claimant sought payment on a cheque in respect of gamblig debts incurred by the defendant. Teare J said: ‘The ordinary and natural meaning of credit in the context of section 16 of the Act is ‘time to pay’, in the sense of deferring or postponing the punter’s obligation to pay for the chips he … Continue reading Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat: ComC 3 Sep 2008
VDT COMMUNITY LAW – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Gaming – Provision of gaming machines excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under Part III of Gaming Act 1968 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal neutrality infringed in law or in practice – Whether defence of due diligence by UK possible – Linneweber [2008] STC 1069 … Continue reading Rank Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Aug 2008
VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Gaming – Mechanised cash bingo under Gaming Act 1968 s.14 excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under s.21 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal neutrality infringed – Same company making supplies to same players under both section 14 and 21 – Whether infringement of fiscal neutrality requires competition between supplies as … Continue reading The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 May 2008
Whether magistrates correct to refuse issue of gaming licence for casino – correct exercise of discretion. Citations: [2008] EWCA Civ 428 Links: Bailii Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Licensing, Magistrates Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267359
Prizes from gaming machines which were limited to prizes of six pounds per game could be lawfully accumulated by gamers under management rules for larger prizes Judges: Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead Citations: Gazette 07-May-1998, Times 03-Apr-1998, [1998] UKHL 14, [1999] AC 247, [1998] … Continue reading Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: HL 2 Apr 1998
The Defendant had gambled and lost money at the Claimant’s clubs. andpound;29,000 was due on cheques drawn by him which had not been honoured. An agreement was reached under which he would pay andpound;13,500 in cash, and would reduce the rest of the balance by stages out of winnings. Held: That was an illegal agreement … Continue reading Ladup Ltd v Yazbeck: QBD 14 May 1985
When deciding on the grant of licences for gaming machines with prizes in an amusement centre, the Local Authority had the right to look at the social circumstances in the surrounding area, and take the view that the grant of the licence would be inappropriate. Citations: Times 26-Oct-1998 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 34, Lotteries and … Continue reading Regina v Liverpool Crown Court and Another, Ex Parte Luxury Leisure Ltd: CA 26 Oct 1998
Lord Denning MR described the game bingo: ‘I expect that everybody knows ordinary bingo. It is played at bazaars, sales of work [sic: in [1976] 1 All ER 273, at 279c, the phrase is ‘places of work’], and so forth, for small prizes and is perfectly lawful. Now prize bingo is like ordinary bingo, but … Continue reading Regina v Herrod, ex parte Leeds City District Council: CA 1976
A Local Authority may properly consider any apparent demand for such services when considering an application for a licence for an amusement centre. Citations: Times 09-Mar-1995 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 34 Licensing, Local Government Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86348
The court was asked not to renew a gaming licence on the basis that the company was not a fit and proper person. They had a practice of repeatedly accepting cheques from persons whose previous cheques had been dishonoured, and in circumstances in which the licence holder knew that the new cheques would be dishonoured … Continue reading Regina v Knightsbridge London Crown Court ex parte Marcrest Properties Ltd: CA 1983
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings resulted from the provision of a ‘gaming machine’ as defined in Note (3), … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc: SC 8 Jul 2015
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from VAT.Rimer LJ said that a narrow reading might lead to absurdity: That cannot … Continue reading HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc: CA 30 Oct 2013
Banker’s reference no guarantee An Arab businessman lost pounds 18m at the claimant casino, and wrote scrip cheques against his account with the defendant. The claimant obtained judgment, but being unable to enforce that judgment pursued his bank. The club had used a system where its bankers obtained confirmation of the value of a customer’s … Continue reading Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi: ComC 17 Mar 2008
The Defendant had gambled at the plaintiff’s casino, using cheques drawn on a company to obtain chips, all of which he lost. The cheques not having been honoured, Crockfords sued the Defendant for repayment of the loan made to him on the issue of the chips, and applied for summary judgment. At first instance, Henry … Continue reading Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta: CA 8 Jan 1992
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice . .
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances in the appearance of the sides of playing cards, and the manipulation of … Continue reading Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords): SC 25 Oct 2017
The claimant, a professional gambler, sued the defendant casino for his winnings. The club replied that the claimant’s methods amounted to a form of cheating, and that no liability arose to pay the winnings. Held: The claim failed. ‘The fact that the claimant is genuinely convinced that he is not a cheat and even that … Continue reading Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club): QBD 8 Oct 2014
Claims were made as to an alleged fraud by some of the respondents. Judges: Treacy J Citations: [2005] EWHC 2662 (QB), [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 247, [2005] All ER (D) 364, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 484 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL … Continue reading AbouRahmah and Another v Abacha and others: QBD 28 Nov 2005
A stay was sought against a bank which had financed a contract and was supporting litigation arising out of it. Held: Although the liability in crime and tort had been abolished, Section 14(2) of the 1967 Act preserved the law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to … Continue reading Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse: CA 1980
The claimant sought recovery of his substantial winnings from the defendant gaming club. The club had resisted saying that the methods used by the claimant at cards, called, ‘edge sorting’ was a form of cheating, a criminal offence within the section, and that therefore no claim arose. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed (Sharp LJ dissenting) … Continue reading Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club): CA 4 Nov 2016
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of dishonesty. Held: His appeal failed. Dishonesty is a state of the … Continue reading Regina v Ghosh: CACD 5 Apr 1982
(Jamaica) A cheque was drawn which was used as part a complex financial arrangement intended to purchase foreign currency to work around Jamaica’s foreign exchange control regulations. It was asserted that by presenting the cheque used in the . .
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .