Robertson v. Anderson [2002] ScotCS 312 (05 December 2002)

Robertson v. Anderson [2002] ScotCS 312 (05 December 2002)

The court held that the agreement between the parties to share the bingo winnings was intended to create legal relations and was not merely a social arrangement. The agreement was not a gaming contract between the parties but a collateral contract to share winnings, and thus not rendered unenforceable by the doctrine of sponsio ludicra. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to find, on the evidence, that such an agreement existed and was legally binding.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 312
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Isobel Robertson; Defender and Reclaimer: Lorna Anderson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Court (inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Intention to Create Legal Relations, Enforceability of Informal Agreements, Sponsio Ludicra (unenforceability of Gaming Contracts), Joint Ventures in Gaming, Social Agreements and Contract Formation
Contract Law Gaming Law Intention to Create Legal Relations Enforceability of Informal Agreements Sponsio Ludicra (unenforceability of Gaming Contracts) Joint Ventures in Gaming Social Agreements and Contract Formation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isobel Robertson

Pursuer and Respondent

Lorna Anderson

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Court (inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement to share bingo winnings between friends is legally enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was intended to create legal relations or was merely a social arrangement
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of sponsio ludicra renders the agreement unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the agreement between the parties to share the bingo winnings was intended to create legal relations and was not merely a social arrangement. The agreement was not a gaming contract between the parties but a collateral contract to share winnings, and thus not rendered unenforceable by the doctrine of sponsio ludicra. The Lord Ordinary was entitled to find, on the evidence, that such an agreement existed and was legally binding.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • The defender is ordered to pay the pursuer one-half of the bingo winnings, specifically £54,195.