Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilf Gilbert (Staffordshire) Ltd: 1994

The bookmaker defendant received a broadcast information service for which he was prepared to pay. That service carried another information service (‘BAGS’) for which the second provider also sought payment. The bookmaker was not prepared to pay for that, and said so. However the two services were not severable – one could not receive the first without the second. BAGS sought to claim from the bookmaker inter alia on the footing that he had received a service, benefited from it and knew that BAGS wanted payment for it in the sense that it was not free.
Held: Aldous J asked and answered the question as follows: ‘Does the law impose a duty upon a person to pay, when he receives and uses a service knowing that it is not being offered free; when he makes it clear to the provider of the service that he does not want the service and that he will not pay for it? The answer is, I believe, no . . When a party makes it clear to the provider of a service that he will not pay for it or does not want it, then it cannot be against the conscience of that man that he should refuse to pay for the service.’ and ‘If the provider of the service knows that the recipient does not intend to pay, he cannot complain if the recipient does not ultimately pay. In such circumstances, the law will not help him to obtain recompense unless he has some proprietary or contractual right.’

Judges:

Aldous J

Citations:

[1994] FSR 723

Cited by:

Distinguished on the factsGreater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd ChD 21-Dec-2007
The claimant sought payment under section 25 from the defendant football club for the costs of policing football matches. The defendant said that the sums were not due since the events had been over-policed, and had not been agreed or requested.
CitedGreater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the amounts payable by a football club to the police for the attendance of police officers at matches. The defendant appealed against a finding that it had requested the services for which charges had been made under section 25 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Equity

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.262973