Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
SIR ANTHONY CLARKE MR LADY JUSTICE SMITH and LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS ____________________
John Howell QC and Ben Jaffey (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP) for the Claimant The Defendant did not appear and was not represented James Dingemans QC and Stephen Walsh (instructed by Joelson Wilson & Co) for the First and Second Interested Parties Michael Fordham QC and Jessica Simor (instructed by Walker Morris Solicitors) for the Third Interested Party Alexander Gunning (instructed by Gregory Rowcliffe Milners) for the Fourth Interested Party Hearing dates : 7 and 8 April 2008 ____________________
That passage was in fact the starting-point for Mr Howell's sustained criticisms of the position adopted by the Gambling Commission, but I think it fair to say that he castigated it as the culmination of an erroneous line of reasoning, stemming from the error in the Home Office document in 1968 and having no foundation in the 1968 Act. This aspect of the Gambling Commission's advice was also criticised in the decision in the Oasis Casino case, which in this respect Mr Howell was able to deploy to his advantage even though the court's construction of para 18(2) in that case was against him.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.