by Matthew Austin October-30-2015 in Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Commercial & Business
The question of the enforceability of gambling debts in Ireland came before the High Court recently. In Sporting Index Limited v John O’Shea [2015] IEHC 407 Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh was asked to determine whether a UK judgment against an Irish gambler could be enforced against the gambler in this jurisdiction.
Sporting Index Limited had allowed Mr O’Shea’s online betting account to become overdrawn resulting in the liability for gambling debts which were at issue in the UK court proceedings. Judgment was obtained by Sporting Index Limited in the UK court proceedings as against Mr O’Shea in the sum of €118,058.99 in respect of the gambling debt. The Master of the Irish High Court granted an Order deeming the judgment enforceable in this state. That Order was then appealed to the High Court and came before Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh.
The Judge had to consider two key pieces of legislation. The first was section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 which states:
- Every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void.
- No action shall lie for the recovery of any money or thing which is alleged to be won or to have been paid upon a wager or which has been deposited to abide the event on which a wager is made.
- A promise, express or implied, to pay any person any money paid by him under or in respect of a contract to which this section applies to pay any money by way of commission, fee, reward or otherwise in respect of the contract or of any services connected with the contract is void and no action shall lie for the recovery of any such money.
The second key piece of legislation which the Judge had to consider was Article 34 of European Council Regulation No. 44/2001 which, in relation to the domestic recognition of a judgment given in another EU member state, states that such a judgment shall not be recognised "If such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought."
Sporting Index Limited argued that Section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 did not apply in this case because the Irish courts were being asked to recognise and enforce a court order and not the gambling debt itself.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh’s judgment should be a source of comfort to inveterate gamblers throughout the country. He stated:
“The intention of the legislature in relation to the provisions of the 1956 Act is perfectly clear. The enforcement of any betting contracts is prohibited and I am satisfied that the statute constitutes a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of this State. There is a manifest conflict between the foreign court order arising from a gambling debt and Irish public policy as expressed in the 1956 statute. Because this rule was enacted by the Oireachtas I am bound to find that the rule is essential in the legal order of the State. The rule reflects public policy on the control of gambling. It is an essential measure in as much as the Oireachtas has considered it necessary for the purposes of controlling gambling.”
The Judge rejected the argument that all the court was being asked to do was recognise and enforce a UK court order. He stated as follows:
“The debt and the order are as inseparable as “the dancer from the dance”. The law prohibits any enforcement of such in this State. Further, the Regulation directs that a foreign court order “shall not be recognised” if recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in Ireland and as I so find I am prohibited from recognising the order of the London Court.
Full copy of the judgment here.
Back to Full NewsShare this article:
About the Author
Matthew Austin
Matthew is a partner in the Commercial & Business team and has considerable expertise in a range of practice areas, having acted for Irish and International clients in domestic and multi-jurisdictional issues. Matthew has advised in civil and administrative law disputes and in regulatory and advisory matters including insolvency/restructuring, IP, defamation and media law, competition and consumer protection and data protection.