||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 52 (Jan)
|| EWCA Civ 5
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Arden, Wilson and Toulson LJJ
||Matthew Slater and Rory Brown (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the claimant.
||The defendant appeared in person.
||14 January 2011
Betting - Gaming contract - Money paid for purpose of betting - Money not being repaid to claimant - Claimant seeking repayment of money - Judge finding agreement between parties null and void - Judge finding agreement could not be sued on - Whether claimant having valid claims - .
Betting Gaming contract. Where the claimant had paid to the defendant the sum of 20,000 for the purpose of betting the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found the defendant's promise to repay the 20,000 fell within s1 of the meaning that the promise was void. However, the unenforceable nature of the agreement between the parties was no bar to the claimant's restitutionary claim if the money had been used for a purpose extraneous to the agreement.Accordingly, the judge's judgment would be set aside and a re-trial ordered.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases