- This topic has 63 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
one of the news reports indicated that Lord Bannatyne would deliver judgment three weeks after the hearing, so if true still a few days to go.
judgment yet to appear, but there is an interesting one today recounting the history of The Tartan Army trademark:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
also one from 3 February about Edinburgh Council trying to get a gentleman (Melvyn Marcel) to bury his mother (died 1987) and father (died 1994).
just to say that still no sign of Lord Bannatyne pronouncing in CA90/16 Albert Kinloch v Coral Racing Ltd t/a Coral, either in the published Judgments section or scheduled in the Court Rolls for next week (when he has a 4 day hearing in another case):
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-of-session
the most recent judgment published today (Melissa Malone) seems to relate to a hearing that ended on 2 June 2016.
if that gap of 267 calendar days were to be replicated in this case (where the hearing ended 19 January 2017) we could be looking at mid-October……
Judgment is due today at about noon.
Not at a time then when there is the remotest danger of attention being focused elsewhere :)
Coral won
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
I haven’t read it all in detail but basically the judge says the 2500-1 odds meant the bet should be defined as Coral intended and the punter would have known this.
I find this a rather annoying and depressing view, and it sets a dangerous precedent for punters.
judges are never wrong
unless you’re talking about cheltenham
anyway I would agree with the decision here. It’s a sporting bet and it’s not a sporting relegation. They need to clarify the rules though in future to avoid this happening again
I don’t think this is correct ruling, gives the Fiddlers carte blanche to move goalposts.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysI agree with the sentiment Purwell.
The only legal saving grace is that as from October 1, 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 repealed the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 which were the subject of this case.
That Act introduced a new definition of the word “consumer”, wider than that in the 1999 Regulations.
Even so, history now records the attitude of Corals and Lord Bannatyne that this 70+ year-old self-described retired bookie on a pension could not possibly be a “consumer” despite placing a bet on the standard terms of Corals in 2011 because:
>>>>>>>
[150] …..the evidence was clear, never mind the whole background, that at the time of laying [sic] his bet he was a professional gambler. It was clear that the principal source of his income was gambling. It was clear that on repeated occasions he was carrying out an activity, namely: gambling with a view to profit and he was using these winnings to finance further gambling……£100 was a lot of money for a pensioner to stake on what he believed would be a losing bet where according to him his pension was only £200 per week. In summary it was clear that his gambling was repeated, provided a large portion of his means and the further investment to be used as working capital, for further gambling. In placing the bet he was therefore acting in the course of business as a professional gambler. Thus the Regulations did not apply in this case.
<<<<<<
The >> whole background<< was listed by Lord Bannatyne in para [40]:
• He attended Shawfield Racing on two nights per week.
• He worked there as a bookmaker at the weekend.
• He set odds for dog racing. The week before the proof he was acting as a bookmaker’s clerk at the above course.
• His father was a bookmaker.
• He had acted as a clerk for a bookmaker since he was about 14. For the best part of 60 years he had been a bookmaker’s clerk.
• Between 1987 and 1996 he was a bookmaker.
• He accepted he knew well how the gambling industry worked.
• He had taken bets in his betting shop with respect to football.
• The shop at which he placed the bet was five to six miles from his home and there were many betting shops nearer his home than the one in which he placed his bet.
• He accepted that in the past he had been asked not to make bets in certain betting shops. In certain betting shops he was not treated as an ordinary punter. At Coral’s in Victoria Road (which was near where he lived) the amount he was allowed to bet was limited.
• In 2011 he was taking part on a regular basis in Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments. He was playing four nights per week and was making a profit by doing so.
• He described himself at the time of placing the bet as retired and his pension then was £200 per week.
• In 2011 he was also betting on horse racing and what he described as singles in football. He described himself as a success when betting on football.
• He thought it was fair to describe him as an “ordinary person” in relation to betting transactions.
• He said normally he would have £100 cash in his pockets as he had at the time of placing the bet.
• He did not think £100 was an extremely large amount to bet, where according to him he did not think that he would win the bet.<<<<
The enduring and alarming significance of this decision is not in the paragraphs dealing with the definition of “relegation”.
It is in those paragraphs which endorse the freedom of the likes of Corals – in the case basically of anyone other than an unknowledgeable, once-a-year-type punter – to by-pass consumer protection laws through the simple expedient of unilaterally characterising anyone who places a bet in order to make money as “not a consumer”, but “acting in the course of business as a professional gambler”.
“It cannot be a hobby if you are trying to make money” is their now-Court-approved reasoning, and since it is not a hobby you have no protection against unfair contract terms in the way that consumers otherwise have.
What kinds of unfair terms in bookie standard conditions are involved ?
To paraphrase a categorisation made by the OFT:Groups 1 and 2: Exclusion and limitation clauses
Group 3: Binding punters while allowing the bookie to provide no service
Group 4: Retention of payment on punter cancellation
Group 5: Financial penalties
Group 6: Cancellation clauses
Group 7: Bookie’s right to cancel without notice
Group 8: Excessive notice periods for punter cancellation
Group 9: Binding punters to hidden terms
Group 10: Bookie’s rights to vary terms generally
Group 11: Right to change terms of bet
Group 12: Price variation clauses
Group 13: Bookie’s right of final decision
Group 14: Entire agreement and formality clauses
Group 15: Binding punters where the bookie defaults
Group 16: Bookie’s right to assign without consent
Group 17: Restricting the punter’s remedies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.