Gambler who lost £90,000 bet on Celtic match fails in legal challenge over bookmaker’s refusal to pay out

A gambler who lost more than £90,000 after placing an online bet on a Scottish football match has failed in a legal challenge over the bookmaker’s decision to refuse to pay out.

A judge in the Court of Session refused permission for the application for judicial review to proceed after ruling that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the England-based betting adjudication service - which upheld a decision of the betting company - was subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts.

The judicial review arose out of a bet placed by the petitioner Gordon Shearer with the first respondent Betvictor Ltd, a company registered and operating from Gibraltar, subject to regulation by the Gibraltar Gambling Commission but having a licence to provide online betting services to customers in the United Kingdom.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby heard that on 24 December 2011 the petitioner placed an online bet of £92,476 at odds of 1/18 on the outcome of a game between Celtic and Kilmarnock.

The dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent was whether the bet was on Celtic to win the match, as the petitioner claimed, or only to win the second half, as the first respondent maintained.

Celtic won the match 2-1, but only drew the second half 1-1 and the first respondent therefore refused to pay out the £97,613 the petitioner would have won or refund the stake.

The first respondent’s terms and conditions provided for disputes to be adjudicated by the second respondent, the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd, a company registered in England and having a place of business there, whose ruling is final.

The petitioner pursued the adjudication with the second respondent, which issued a decision in favour of the first respondent and following a review it adhered to its original decision.

He then complained to the Gibraltar Gambling Commission (GCC) but the GCC refused the complaint and an appeal to the Gambling Commissioner was also rejected.

The petitioner considered a judicial review of that decision in Gibraltar but was advised that even if upheld all that would be achieved would be a requirement that the first respondent would be bound to enquire into the complaint.

He therefore raised the present petition in the Court of Session seeking reduction of the ruling issued by the second respondent and declarator that the first respondent was “bound to pay out” on the bet because it “did not form part of the contract”.

In the alternative, the petitioner sought declarator that the contract between the parties was “void” through “lack of consensus”, and therefore the first respondent was bound to make return the stake of £92,476 to him.

However, the judge refused permission to proceed.

In a written opinion, Lord Boyd of Duncansby said: “I am not satisfied that the petitioner has demonstrated that the second respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. It is a company incorporated in England and having its place of business in England. The adjudication was carried out in England. Rule 2(l) of paragraph 8 of the Civil Jurisdictions and Judgements Act 1982 applies and provides that jurisdiction lies in the courts in the place where the company has its seat, ie England.”

Counsel for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the House of Lords in the 2007 case of Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department and suggested that as the petitioner was domiciled in Scotland and the contract with the first respondent was completed in Scotland, the Scottish courts would have jurisdiction, but the judge was not persuaded that Tehrani was of any assistance to the petitioner, as it concerned tribunals established by statute and dealt with immigration.

“This is a private dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent arbitrated privately by the second respondent,” he explained, adding that, as Lord Hope of Craighead observed, “a decision taken outside Scotland under the law of another part of the United Kingdom is not subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session even if the effects are felt in Scotland”.

Lord Boyd said: “I have concluded that because the second respondent is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts that there are no real prospects of success. Even if it were to proceed the petitioner would face some formidable hurdles.”