William Hill loses challenge against betting levy board
William Hill has lost its legal challenge concerning a levy raised from betting exchanges.
Bookmakers pay a levy on their profits to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. William Hill brought judicial review proceedings challenging the board’s decision not to seek a levy from users of betting exchanges.
The case, R (on the application of William Hill) v The Horserace Betting Levy Board [2012] EWHC 2039 (Admin), centred on the meaning of the term “bookmaker”, which is defined by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 as a person who “carries on the business of receiving or negotiating bets”.
Betting exchanges are online marketplaces which enable betting to take place and match punters with backers, charging commission on the winnings, but do not themselves incur any risk.
The board decided users of online betting exchanges did not fall within the definition, but William Hill argued this was wrong in law and some users of betting exchanges were running businesses as bookmakers and should be levied.
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in the High Court dismissed this argument, noting that, “since criminal sanctions are involved...it would be wrong to give an expansive interpretation to the statutory wording”.
He said a bookmaker “is so called because he normally will seek to make a book, that is to say, to accept bets at odds that ensure that, whatever the result of the race or other event that is the subject of the bets, he will make a profit”.
Herbert Smith partner Andrew Lidbetter, solicitor for the board, says: “The status of betting exchanges and their users is a point which has caused controversy in the horseracing and betting industries and the judgment is therefore a welcome resolution to the issue.
“It has potential implications not only for our client, who would have had to find a way to enforce levy payments from exchange users, but also for the business model of betting exchanges.”
