STANLEY WOOD AGAINST MUSSELBURGH JOINT RACING COMMITTEE [2016] ScotSC 69 (24 October 2016)

STANLEY WOOD AGAINST MUSSELBURGH JOINT RACING COMMITTEE [2016] ScotSC 69 (24 October 2016)

The allocation of bookmaker pitches was carried out in accordance with the licence terms, which gave priority to holders of Rails List Positions 1-6 and Tattersalls List Positions 1-43 for New Area pitches. The pursuer, as holder of Rails List Positions 7 and 8, was not entitled to a New Area pitch unless all within the priority lists had been offered and declined, which did not occur. The defender's policy not to 'fill up' vacant Rails pitches was a reasonable exercise of discretion and not arbitrary, capricious, or anti-competitive. No evidence supported any loss or entitlement to damages.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 69
Parties
Pursuer: Stanley Wood; Defender: Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claim dismissed; defender absolved
Legal Topics
Allocation of Bookmaker Pitches, Interpretation of Licence Terms, Discretion in Contractual Performance, Custom and Practice, Competition Law
Contract Law Licensing Law Allocation of Bookmaker Pitches Interpretation of Licence Terms Discretion in Contractual Performance Custom and Practice Competition Law

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Wood

Pursuer

Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached the licence in allocation of bookmaker pitches on Ladies' Day 2014
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer as holder of Rails List Positions 7 and 8 was entitled to a pitch in the New Area or an additional pitch on the Rails
  3. 3 Whether the defender's policy on allocation was unreasonable or anti-competitive

Ratio Decidendi

The allocation of bookmaker pitches was carried out in accordance with the licence terms, which gave priority to holders of Rails List Positions 1-6 and Tattersalls List Positions 1-43 for New Area pitches. The pursuer, as holder of Rails List Positions 7 and 8, was not entitled to a New Area pitch unless all within the priority lists had been offered and declined, which did not occur. The defender's policy not to 'fill up' vacant Rails pitches was a reasonable exercise of discretion and not arbitrary, capricious, or anti-competitive. No evidence supported any loss or entitlement to damages.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed; defender absolved

Orders

  • Defender absolved from the claim
  • All questions of expenses reserved