Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 52 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWCA Civ 5
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Arden, Wilson and Toulson LJJ

Representation Matthew Slater and Rory Brown (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the claimant.
  The defendant appeared in person.
Judgment Dates: 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 - .

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.