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 judgment. The Act made the provision of credit for gambling a criminal offence, but by excluding certain items from the provision, ‘it validates those transactions in terms of civil rights and obligations; correspondingly a transaction not so validated is illegal, because it is in breach of the prohibition in the section, and this illegality has the normal consequences in terms of civil rights and obligations.’ On the Defendant’s case, the expressed conditions under which he handed over the substitute cheque, if accepted, even implicitly, by the Claimant, would have rendered the transaction in breach of section 16(1)(b) and would have invalidated not only the cheque itself but also, as from that time, the underlying loans. The defendant’s argument that the forbearance of the claimant to enforce the cheque amounted to credit was arguable, and the case should go to trial.
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, LLoyd LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1001, Times 31-Oct-2007, [2008] Bus LR D13
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ladup Ltd v Yazbeck QBD 14-May-1985
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 . .
Cited – Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat CA 19-Oct-2007
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 . .
Cited – Aziz v Mayfair Casinos Ltd 30-Jun-1982
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.
Cited – Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta CA 8-Jan-1992
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Knightsbridge London Crown Court ex parte Marcrest Properties Ltd CA 1983
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 . .
Cited – Roberts and Co v Marsh 1915
The defendant’s cheque had not been met. The debt it cleared was void. He issued a substitue cheque.
Held: The substitute cheque was a valid and unconditional order to pay, and therefore valid as a cheque, which the bank was bound to pay on . .
Cited by:
Cited – Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat CA 19-Oct-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.259914