How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would guess isn't just picking their bets out because of the colours of the silks from the paper. The flags would have went up as soon as it was accepted and 365 could have voided it quite easily (I have no issue with that at all). They didn't, and decided to let it run in its entirety and then claiming this 3rd party line - how is that fair? To me they would have to prove that they have voided plenty of losers after the results and paid back punters for their T&Cs to hold water.

The information that relates to whether or not they were in breach of contract. It's pretty bloody relevant considering this whole case is a dispute over breach of contract. People moan about bookies not accepting large bets and restricting people and now you are effectively saying they should void any large bets straight away and just presume the person placing the bet may be breaching their terms and conditions? Again to go to an insurance contract analogy what you are saying is the equivalent that people who don't mention they have any RTA convictions and breach the contract should still get paid out simply because the insurance company took the money and didn't cancel the policy at any point.

There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365. If she didn't already have the funds weeks before in her bank account, and someone sent it to her and then she placed the bet, she will obviously just say she has simply borrowed it from said person to place the bet for herself.

No sorry that isn't obvious. It's not obvious at all that this female (who if the bookies position is correct is being paid presumably a percentage of the winnings) is going to perjur herself in the High Court. Do you know how many years you get for perjury in the High Court?

The ideal outcome would be that the third party scenario is declared irrelevant.  There really is no basis for the bookie's claim that they have a right to refuse bets from certain people.  They can use basic risk management to minimise exposure.  In this case they were clearly happy to accept a large liability.

Of course there is. Every business or person has the right to choose who they contract with and not be deceived in to contracting with someone through a proxy. Whether or not they should be restricting or banning people who are profitable or bet in a different way is a different matter and is something the toothless gambling commission should be looking at in terms of their licensing conditions but it isn't a matter for the court in a contract dispute.

@Shrewd Dude

Of course there is. Every business or person has the right to choose who they contract with and not be deceived in to contracting with someone through a proxy.

That isn't an absolute right and even if the business is deceived, they should have to prove some damage by contracting with this other person (which they can't when their prices offered purport to be accurate and they accepted a substantial bet at those prices).  This is where the numerous examples of people putting bets on for third parties are relevant.  Their "no third party" term is obviously unenforceable on a practical level.  If the intention is only to apply it to substantial winning bets, it is clearly unfair and designed to unjustly enrich the bookmaker.

I don't know whether the court will discuss this issue in detail, but the entire model of putting up suspect prices, restricting, banning and trying to avoid paying should be exposed.

They have an licensing obligation to treat customers fairly - there are also numerous reasons from discrimination to competition regulation where a business would be acting illegally by refusing to do business with a person.

It isn't 365 who are alleging breach of contract.  It is the plaintiff.  365 are apparently saying that the because their complex rules say something about third parties they should be allowed to withhold winnings from the plaintiff.

Your other examples are red herrings mostly.  They either should be addressed before any bets are taken or wouldn't result in damage or be solved by other remedies. 

This was a substantial bet and would have been reviewed by traders.  There is no question of an error.  They took the bet and when it won decided to look for a way to welch.

My point about your examples is not that there aren't any situations where a firm might have the right to claim that they won't pay out due to "cheating" (in the widest possible sense) but they are irrelevant to this specific case.  There was no cheating.  There was no deception as to the size of the bet eg by many small bets from several accounts.   It was one large bet reviewed and accepted.  It is virtually certain imo that the book has suspicions that the bet was unusual and intended withhold payment, if it was a winner.  Looking more closely at the term being used, it is specifically designed to do that.  It doesn't say that bets will be voided, it says that winnings will not be paid.  I think that in itself might not be legal.

btw re perjury the student could quite easily claim that she considered when the bet was placed keeping the winnings for herself or that her view was that as she was using the account for her benefit despite the circumstances.  The bet being instructed and funded by a third party might be admitted, but that doesn't mean 365 will win.

As you well know books could reduce all their worries about third parties, insiders and coups by limiting early prices and closely monitoring the betting market.  Instead they offer incorrect prices well in advance and ban/restrict people take advantage of them (unless they are casino losers thus reducing racing's income).

The question to be asked of 3.65 is "in what circumstances did you envisage paying out on this bet?"

once bet is accepted .. it has to be treated with some respect ..ie traders in this case .. and had plenty opportunities to kill that bet off if so desired .
a once in a while they find themselves out with the washing to dry .. ?? ..dont think its reasonable ... and many bets have other interested shareholders in on it ,, daily betting for sure ?? an ordinary
pub .. can I  have a bit of that and money goes    ON . ?? .   every day in life ..   sorry business tho land in court .. VERY INTERESTING WHAT OUTCOME MAY HOLD FOR BOTH PARTIES ..
SEEMS TO BE A TRAIT SINCE ALL THIS KICKED OFF THAT STAKES REDUCED  ...  SP   ...ETC ON OFFER .. AND STAKES HALVED OR NOTHING .. SAD DAY FOR BOOKMAKERS .. REALLY  ..
no one should win .. ??

Why?  It seems obvious that they never intended to pay out as soon as they took the bet.  There is no other explanation.

taking the bet?
thought they could trade out
then void it

The contract term that they appear to be using to refuse payment simply states that they don't need to pay out, that's why they haven't returned the stake.

How that can possibly be a fair term amazes me, so I can only imagine that they are arguing that the Consumer Rights Act doesn't apply.

She was said to be 19 when she staked almost £25,000 on 12 horses running in four races in June 2016. But bet365 refused to pay out, believing her stake was supplied by a third party, in breach of its terms and conditions.


we don't have enough information about how the bet or, more likely, a series of bets were placed. Whether the bets were all on the same day or what the stakes were on each bet.

Obviously a betslip that has a total stake of 25,000 would have to be confirmed by traders before placement. If it was done in a series of bets with a much smaller stake then perhaps some of the bets were accepted straightaway.

The OP says that the bets were on 12 horses in 4 races in June 2016 - nothing about whether the races were on the same day.

You need absolutely all the details before you can make a judgement.

that doesn't matter swift-tuttle, if this is correct

But bet365 refused to pay out, believing her stake was supplied by a third party, in breach of its terms and conditions.

I think the court will want full details of the bets, date and time placed in relation to the race times, bet history of the girl, etc etc etc

@hulk23 - that is irrelevant their terms say that they don't need to pay out, not that they must void bets

@swift-tuttle  The court doesn't set the evidence presented.  British courts are adversarial not inquisitorial.

These issues might be considered, but at the behest of the parties, not the judge.

Court date getting close....

Not seen anything but according to the RP back in March, 19/6 was only ever due to be a pre-trial application to have part of the claim struck out, not the start of the case itself. The Racing Post reported in March:

Proceedings remain at an early stage, with no legal arguments advanced. However, counsel for bet365, Peter Hopkins, has commenced steps aimed at having the case against his client reduced before it reaches trial.

Hopkins went before a High Court Master on Friday to secure a date for the strike-out application. It was confirmed that the legal move will be determined following a one-day hearing on June 19.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/1-million-claim-bet365-head-to-court-as-teenager-fights-for-winnings/324603