Grundlingh and Others v Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd (152/2004) [2005] ZASCA 62; [2005] 4 All SA 1 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 502 (SCA) (1 June 2005)

Grundlingh and Others v Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd (152/2004) [2005] ZASCA 62; [2005] 4 All SA 1 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 502 (SCA) (1 June 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exotic bets offered by the appellants, where winnings were determined by reference to the respondent's totalizator dividends, fell within the definition of 'fixed odds bets' under the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995, as the odds were agreed upon by formula at the time the bet was laid. The legislative history showed vacillation, but the current definition did not prohibit such bets. On the issue of unlawful competition, the majority found that the appellants' use of the respondent's totalizator dividends for calculating payouts was not unlawful, as the practice had been legislatively sanctioned for decades and was accepted within the racing...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 62
Parties
Appellant: André Gründlingh; Appellant: Ulrich Osmund Schüler; Appellant: Turfsport CC; Respondent: Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2005
Case Number
152/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Howie, Farlam, Conradie, Lewis, Comrie
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Fixed Odds Betting, Totalizator Operations, Gauteng Gambling Act, Pari Mutuel Betting
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Unlawful Competition Fixed Odds Betting Totalizator Operations Gauteng Gambling Act Pari Mutuel Betting

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

André Gründlingh

Appellant

Ulrich Osmund Schüler

Appellant

Turfsport CC

Appellant

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exotic bets offered by the appellants are 'fixed odds bets' as defined by the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' use of the respondent's totalizator dividends constitutes unlawful competition.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exotic bets offered by the appellants, where winnings were determined by reference to the respondent's totalizator dividends, fell within the definition of 'fixed odds bets' under the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995, as the odds were agreed upon by formula at the time the bet was laid. The legislative history showed vacillation, but the current definition did not prohibit such bets. On the issue of unlawful competition, the majority found that the appellants' use of the respondent's totalizator dividends for calculating payouts was not unlawful, as the practice had been legislatively sanctioned for decades and was accepted within the racing...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs which are to include the costs of two counsel.