William Hill Organization Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board & Ors

The statutory concept of a bookmaker must be determined from the words used in the legislation, read in context and in light of its purpose. Where criminal sanctions are involved, the court should not give the wording an expansive meaning. A person who places bets, including lay bets, through a betting exchange may make or receive individual bets, but does not thereby carry on the business of receiving bets. The distinction between making and receiving bets remains material. Providing facilities for betting is not equivalent to receiving bets. Accordingly, betting-exchange customers acting in the course of business were not bookmakers under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and were not liable for the horserace betting levy.

William Hill sought judicial review of the Horserace Betting Levy Board’s decision that customers of betting exchanges were not liable to pay the horserace betting levy under section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. The Board had accepted legal advice that such customers were not bookmakers within section 55. William Hill argued that exchange users received or negotiated bets because their offers were matched with opposing bets placed by other users. The central issue was whether a person betting through an internet exchange in the course of business carried on the business of receiving or negotiating bets and was therefore a bookmaker under the Act.

1. Claim dismissed. The Board’s interpretation of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 was correct.
2. The court applied the established approach to statutory interpretation where legislation must be applied to facts not contemplated when enacted. The court must give effect to the statutory purpose within the permissible meaning of the words, but cannot fill gaps in the legislation. The later Gambling Act 2005 could not determine the meaning of the earlier Act.
3. The statutory distinction between making and receiving a bet was material. The historical wording of the Finance Act 1926, subsequent legislation and the authorities supported the conclusion that a person making bets, but not receiving or negotiating them, was not a bookmaker, even if betting in the course of business.
4. Providing facilities for betting was not the same as receiving bets. An exchange user might occasionally accept an offer or make an offer, depending on the sequence in which bets were matched. That did not establish that the user carried on the business of receiving bets.
5. The relevant question was whether the person carried on the business of receiving bets, not whether the person happened to receive a bet during business activities. Unlike an operator of a betting shop or racecourse stand, an exchange user did not carry on a business of receiving bets. The user was therefore not a bookmaker under section 55 and was not liable for the levy under section 27.