The Gaming Act in Gambling

In the Gaming Act, Acts of 1710 and 1835 did not affect gaming of wagering contracts themselves, but only the securities given in respect of them.

The gaming Act of 1845, makes the actual contract of gaming or wagering null and void, so that no action can be brought upon it against the loser or against a stake-holder for the recovery of winnings.

To safeguard themselves, bookmakers and gaming promoters required stakes to be deposited with them in advance, and this was one of the practices, which led to the passing of the Betting Act 1853, to suppress the use of certain premises for betting or gaming.

Later, one of the purposes of state interference in gambling was to obtain revenue.

A vetting duty introduced in 1926 was a failure, but the introduction of totalisator and pool betting, which was concentrated in the hands of a few totalisator operators and pool promoters made it easier to collect revenue from these sources.

With the introduction of a licensing system for bookmakers and betting offices in 1960, it was made easier to impose a levy on bookmakers (and the horse race totalisator) under statutory authority. A general tax on gambling was introduced in the 1966 Budget.

An excise duty, known as the Bookmaker's License Duty, is levied on bookmakers who carry on business at dog race meetings at which a totalisator is operated.

The winner of a bet cannot bring an action to recover his winnings, either against the loser, or against a stakeholder, as all contracts by way of gaming and wagering are void.

If a loser pays his stake to the winner, it cannot be recovered; and if a loser overpays the winner by mistake he cannot recover the amount overpaid.

A winner cannot sue a stakeholder for his winnings, but either a winner or a loser may recover his stake from the stakeholder, even after the event.

However, once a stakeholder has paid the loser's stake over to the winner, no action can be brought against him by the loser.

An agent cannot recover sums which he has paid on behalf of his principal in respect of his principal betting or gaming losses, but he is accountable to his principal for any moneys received by him in respect of debts made on behalf of the principal.

Money lent for the purpose of gaming and betting is not recoverable unless it is a genuine loan repayable in any event. If the money is repayable only in the event of bets being won, the loan is not recoverable.