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.