Betting operator wins tribunal case over "primary gambling activity"

A betting operator has successfully appealed a Gambling Commission decision to revoke its non-remote general betting operating licence in the context of a statutory review of its combined operating licence.

The operator, Trafalgar Leisure, provided five remote betting terminals and four category B2 gaming machines at each of its licensed premises. Trafalgar did not offer any over-the-counter betting facilities.

The Commission argued that this amounted to a breach of Condition 16 (‘primary gambling activity’) of Trafalgar’s combined operating licence because the five Betfair terminals did not constitute “sufficient facilities for betting”.

The regulator argued that ‘facilities for betting’ within the meaning of Condition 16 could only mean facilities for non-remote (that is, over-the-counter) betting with the holder of the operating licence.

However, a High Court judge sitting in the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal rejected the Commission’s position.

Instead, the judge agreed with Trafalgar that the natural meaning of ‘facilities for betting’ included remote facilities such as the Betfair terminals. He therefore saw no reason to restrict it to meaning only non-remote facilities. It followed that the provision of four gaming machines at Trafalgar’s licensed premises did not breach Condition 16.

Gerald Gouriet QC and George Mackenzie of Francis Taylor Building acted for Trafalgar Leisure. They were instructed by Simon Style of Mischon de Reya LLP.

According to FTB, the decision “means that, contrary to the position adopted by the Gambling Commission, it is permissible to use a general betting operating licence for no other purpose than a platform for making gaming machines available for use on premises”.