Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Limited: HL 1949

The policy behind the 1845 Act was to discourage gambling.
Viscount Simon said: ‘it is to be observed that though a Parliamentary enactment (like Parliamentary eloquence) is capable of saying the same thing twice over without adding anything to what has already been said, the repetition in the case of an Act of Parliament is not to be assumed. When the legislature enacts a particular phrase in a statute the presumption is that it is saying something which has not been said immediately before. The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out’

Judges:

Viscount Simon

Citations:

[1949] 2 All ER 452, [1949] AC 530

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1845 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCalvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Licensing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266992