The claimant sought to recover andpound;1m on unpaid cheques. The cheques represented half of the sum gambled away by the defendant in one evening. She now alleged that the claimant had not complied with its duties under the 2005 Act to act responsibly in the giving of credit. The claimant denied that its cheque cashing facility afforded to high value players amounted to the giving of credit.
Held: The Act expressly permits the giving of a cheque by the player not post-dated and for full value, though if it were found on the facts that the player signs and the casino accepts a cheque as a charade or pretence, (for example if both know that the player could not ever pay upon presentation of the cheque), the proper finding of fact, as much as in law, would be that credit was being extended or accommodation made. The 2005 Act was a liberalising Act.
The court approved counsel’s analysis of the nature of a gambling chip: ‘chips are a convenient mechanism for facilitating gambling with money. If money is deposited, and the same would apply to a cheque, it is a gratuitous deposit with liberty to the casino to draw upon when and if a debt arises. In turn, the debt does not arise until the end of the session when it is ascertained who is the winner and who is the loser as between casino and player, whereupon a debt arises from the loser to the winner. ‘ There had been no unlawful giving of credit.
The court considered what would be the effect of a finding that the arrangement had been the giving of credit.
Seys Llewellyn QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 2847 (QB)
Bailii
Gaming Act 2005 16(2) 81
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat ComC 3-Sep-2008
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 . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
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 – Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd CA 17-Oct-2012
The claimant company operated parking management for the defendant, charging customers for overparking. The defendant came to believe that the claimant’s behaviour was over-aggressive, and the use of falsehoods, and terminated the contract. The . .
Approved – Calvert 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.
Licensing, Contract, News
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.536031