UK stoush between Betfair and W Hill

[Rinconpaul]

UK court stoush between bookie and exchanges

Brad Waters - 12/03/2013

Counsel for British wagering giant William Hill has told the UK Court of Appeals that the biggest punters on betting exchanges should be classed as bookmakers.

William Hill has long argued the heaviest betting exchange users act in a similar manner to bookmakers and should be liable to pay an annual fee to the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

The High Court rejected William Hill's argument last year but the betting agency took its fight higher, asking three of the UK's top judges to rule that "business users of the betting exchange" should pay a levy.

The Racing Post reported William Hill's legal representatives told the court the definition of a bookmaker, according to the 1963 legislation, was wide enough to include those categorized as "business users of betting exchanges".

The court heard some betting exchange punters have adapted share-trading software to calculate the manner in which they place and lay a high volume of bets to guarantee themselves a return, thus operating as a business.

"Business users of betting exchanges, like traditional bookmakers, seek to utilise a trading strategy to deliver consistent profits," Dinah Rose QC, representing William Hill, told the court.

"A betting exchange user who, for example, undertakes a large volume of betting transactions, who has invested in sophisticated computer systems for the purpose, who systematically hedges his risks, is likely to be carrying out the business of receiving bets."

Betfair's lawyers contended that punters that back and lay horses through the betting exchange should not be liable for a levy that William Hill's customers did not have to pay.

"If a customer of William Hill isn't liable to pay levy on his betting, it must follow that the same bet made on Betfair cannot attract liability," David Anderson QC said.

The three-judge panel is expected to reserve its judgement until a date to be fixed.

[blackdog1]

"If a customer of William Hill isn't liable to pay levy on his betting, it must follow that the same bet made on Betfair cannot attract liability," David Anderson QC said.
I thought that was a fair comment, and Betfair pays its dues to the gov. and racing UK same as WH.

The only difference I see is that you wouldn't last long as a constantly winning customer using his services as a profitable business.

[Chrome Prince]

Aah BUT Mr Hill, there is a built in overround in your books of up to 30% in your favour, so you should pay a levy on that 30%.
Plus you only allow losers and not winners, so that 30% is more than likely double or more.
I put it to you my learned colleague, the Betfair traders have close to 0% overround after Premium Charges and Commission and therefore are not laying bets at a predetermined advantage.
I also contend that WH would not be in business, if it had to play in a Betfair market only, without overround and without a pre existing edge and selective customer base.
As Mr Hill has more than 25% and possibly closer to 50% advantage, that by rights and judicial law, it is a requirement to pay the levy.

Further, if the Court pleases, I would like to offer exhibits to define said differences.

Exhibit A
WH has a licence for online and offline betting
Exhibit B
WH is a registered business
Exhibit C
WH has registered premisies and employees.
Exhibit D
WH alters their odds prior to accepting bets, thereby guaranteeing an edge.
Exhibit D
WH keep taxation and profit and loss sheets, has a Board of Directors and is liable to shareholders.

In short your Honours, WH is in business and must pay taxation and levies based on that business. No Betfair user has ever been able to claim a loss.
Therein lies the conundrum.

I rest my case :D

[Mark]

CASE DISMISSED.

The court orders that Mr Hill pay costs.

Well done Mr Prince.

[stugots]

Good stuff CP & spot on.

[Pat123]

So does William Hill also ban and limit customers? Uk bookmakers are thugs.

[Rinconpaul]

WILLIAM HILL LOSE BETFAIR LEVY APPEAL, LOSE COO JIM MULLEN TO LADBROKES
MAY 4, 2013
0 COMMENTS
British bookies William Hill have lost their legal fight to make users of betting exchange Betfair contribute to the UK horse racing levy. The case dates back nearly two years, when Hills and the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) launched a challenge of a ruling by the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) that Betfair users who accepted ‘lay’ bets didn’t qualify as bookmakers and were thus exempt from the levy imposed on regular bookmakers.

In July 2012, the High Court rejected Hills’ challenge, but gave them leave to appeal. Hills eagerly exercised this option, although the BHA dropped out of the suit after Betfair signed a five-year pact to ante up 10.75% of its annual horse wagering revenue to British Racing. This week, the British Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Hills’ do-over, leaving Hills liable for 50% of Betfair’s legal fees, plus a further 25% of the costs Betfair incurred defending itself against Hills’ original challenge.

Following the ruling, Hills issued a statement saying it was “disappointed,” but maintained that it had “acted with the best of intentions in pursuing this matter, with the sole aim of creating a level playing field for the entire betting industry.” Betfair legal eagle Martin Cruddace said the company was “very pleased” with the ruling that “vindicated” the company’s position. Cruddace couldn’t resist twisting the knife a little, applauding Hills’ “obviously sensible” decision not to pursue the matter any further while deeming it “unfortunate that the seven figure costs incurred by the Levy Board in defending William Hill’s litigation have had a direct and significant impact on prize money. William Hill Online remains by far Britain’s largest non-levy paying bookmaker.”

This was already a bad week for Hills, after Ladbrokes announced it had poached Hills’ COO Jim Mullen to head up its revamped online operations. Lads recently signed a five-year pact with online gambling software outfit Playtech to help kickstart the UK bookies’ lethargic online business. Mullen will assume the mantle of Director, Digital when he joins the company in November. Mullen will report directly to CEO Richard Glynn, who says Mullen brings “a wealth of hands-on experience, having worked with Playtech for the last three years” on William Hill Online (before Hills tired of the antics of its joint venture junior partner).

[Moderator 3]

Rinconpaul, a TOU has been received.

When you copy and paste information from somewhere else you need to provide a link.

Thank you.

Moderator.

[Rinconpaul]

Rinconpaul, a TOU has been received.

When you copy and paste information from somewhere else you need to provide a link.

Thank you.

Moderator.
Apologies, "Gambling News calvinayre.com"

The source wouldn't copy and paste on the iPad.