Mapp v Fernandes

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1972
• Neutral Citation: BB 1972 HC 9
• Docket Number: No. 39 of 1969
• Date: 31 July 1972
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 39 of 1969

Mapp

and

Fernandes

Appearances:

J.M. Adams for the plaintiff.

H.B. St. John, Q.C. for the defendant.

Contract - Betting

Facts: The plaintiff placed at a registered betting office certain bets on a horse race scheduled to be run in England — The horses on which the plaintiff placed his bets placed first and second and the plaintiff sought payment — The issue was whether the bets on the race were placed after the race had been won

Held: No agreement came into existence since the bets were placed after the race had been won.

Williams, J.

1 In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant $3,042 which he alleges was won by him at the betting office Ace Super Service on August 12, 1968. His case is that on that day he placed bets on a race being run at Windsor in England — $100 to win and $200 to place on “Royal Camp” and $200 to place on “Tyrone Girl” in the seventh race on the card. According to the plaintiff these horses finished first and second respectively in the race. The claim is that the defendant was the proprietor of the betting office and that he refused to pay the plaintiff his winnings.

2 The following matters arise on the pleadings for determination:

• (1) whether or not the defendant was a proprietor of the betting office and is responsible for payment of the winnings to the plaintiff. The defendant contends that he was not a proprietor of Ace Super Service but merely managed the business on behalf of certain other persons who had been duly registered as the proprietors. There was therefore no relationship between them by virtue of which he could be made to pay any winnings on any bets made at Ace Super Service;

• (2) whether the bets were made as alleged, whether the plaintiff won his bets, and if he did, the quantum of his winnings;

• (3) whether the transaction amounted to a contract which could be enforced. The defendant, in particular, contends that at the time when the bets were made, the race had already been run. His submission is that in law no bet had been made since the essence of a wager is that it should be upon some future uncertain event. He cited the description of a wager as given by Hawkins, J., in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1892] 2 Q.B. 484 and noted its approval by the Court of Appeal in Earl of Ellesmere v. Wallace [1929] 2 Ch. 1.

3 On the evidence I find as facts:

• (a) that the plaintiff had on August 12, 1968, placed bets with Ace Super Service on the seventh race run at Windsor in England;

• (b) that the bets were $100 to win and $200 to place on “Royal Camp” and $200 to place on “Tyrone Girl”;

• (c) that “Royal Camp” won the race and “Tyrone Girl” placed second;

• (d) that the winnings on the bets were $3,042;

• (e) that owing to a mistake the betting office accepted bets on the race later than the post time for the race and that, in particular, when these bets were made by the plaintiff the race had already been run; and

• (f) that payment on the bets was refused.

4 The first matter to which I address my mind is the extent, if any, to which contracts or agreements by way of gaming or wagering can be enforced in the courts of this Island. The position in the United Kingdom in regard to such contracts or agreements is clear. Section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 provides as follows:

“All contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void, and no suit shall be brought or maintained in any court of law or equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made: Provided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for or towards any plate, prize or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime or exercise.”

5 In the United Kingdom, therefore, gaming and wagering contracts or agreements are expressly declared to be null and void and cannot be enforced in the courts. And the same position exists in Trinidad and Tobago by virtue of incorporation of s. 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 of the United Kingdom into the law of Trinidad and Tobago — see Jemmott v. Phang and Another (1963) 6 W.I.R. 88.

6 However, in Barbados the position is different. Section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 of the United Kingdom forms no part of the law of this Island and has no force herein. And there is among the statutes of this Island no corresponding or like provision. Accordingly the validity and enforceability of gaming...