Close v Wilson
The promise to repay the £20,000 advanced for betting was void under s1 of the Gaming Act 1892, but the claimant may recover funds misapplied by the defendant for purposes outside the betting agreement under the law of restitution.
- Parties
- Appellant: Gary Close; Respondent: Colin Wilson
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 January 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Enforceability of Gaming Contracts, Restitution for Misapplied Funds, Agency and Joint Venture in Betting Arrangements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gary Close
Appellant
Colin Wilson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a promise to repay money advanced for betting purposes is enforceable under the Gaming Acts 1845 and 1892
- 2 Whether the claimant can recover funds not used for betting or used for the defendant's personal benefit
Ratio Decidendi
The promise to repay the £20,000 advanced for betting was void under s1 of the Gaming Act 1892, but the claimant may recover funds misapplied by the defendant for purposes outside the betting agreement under the law of restitution.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Judgment set aside
- Order for retrial before another judge
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment