PoC court case ends with cliffhanger as decision looms
Lord Justice Green says decision prior to 1 October is "unrealistic" and Jenny Williams is accused of misleading court
Great Britain’s plan to introduce a Point of Consumption (PoC) regulatory regime remains up in the air this morning after a legal challenge seeking to overturn the act was unable to return an immediate judgment.
The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association (GBGA) on Tuesday called on the courts to find the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s (DCMS) and the Gambling Commission’s PoC regime “unlawful” and “disproportionate”.
And in a dramatic final day at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, Lord Justice Green said it was “unrealistic” for him to deliver a final judgment ahead of the framework’s planned start date of 1 October.
“Both sides have given me a great deal of homework to do,” Lord Justice Green said. “I’m reluctant to bring forward a judgment as I must try to do my best in the circumstances,” he added.
GBGA barrister Dinah Rose QC requested the regime’s start date be delayed, however, this notion was swiftly rejected by the defendants’ legal team.
However, in understanding the time-sensitive nature of the case, Lord Justice Green said he would endeavour to offer some indication of his likely decision on Tuesday – the eve of the new regime.
Defendants fight back
The day had started with the DCMS legal team, led by Kieron Beal QC, contending the GBGA’s main argument – that the regime was a breach of Article 56 of European law – should be dismissed as it was not applicable to trade between the UK and Gibraltar.
The defendants also dismissed the claim that its rejection of the GBGA’s proposed ‘passporting’ regime was “irrational”, arguing that it was “inadequate” and “undermined the whole purpose of Point of Consumption regulation”.
Gambling Commission barrister Adam Lewis QC then labelled the GBGA’s assertion that the cost of regulation would negatively impact operators as “complete rubbish”, having calculated that fees would total no more than 0.03% of gross gaming yield.
“The level of costs can easily be absorbed,” Lewis QC said. “It’s just more hot air from a trade association that wants to keep the current light-touch regulation that it has,” he added.
With time running out on both sets of legal teams, Lord Justice Green thanked both sides for their hard work in putting together their arguments in such a short space of time and said he would be willing to accept further written submission this morning (Thursday) as he retired to consider the cases put forward.
Court controversy
Earlier in the day a controversial incident arose when the Gambling Commission’s chief executive Jenny Williams was accused of inadvertently misleading the court.
In a witness statement submitted as evidence, Williams argued the Commission had struggled to obtain information from offshore operators and highlighted a particular case involving Gibraltar-based William Hill earlier in the year.
However, Gibraltar Commissioner Phill Brear disputed the example offered by Williams and said that, after being contacted by the Gambling Commission, he had raised the issue with William Hill and promptly reported his findings back to the British regulator and yesterday provided his email communication to the court as evidence.
Addressing Lord Justice Green, Rose QC said she found it “troubling that the Gambling Commission, with its duty of conduct, did not disclose Phill Brear’s email”.
“It’s extremely disappointing and troubling that the court may have been misled,” she added.
Speaking to eGaming Review after the court had risen, Dan Tench, partner of the claimant’s law firm Olswang, called the incident “surprising and extraordinary considering they [the Gambling Commission] were attempting to display how competent they are as a regulator”.
Speaking to eGaming Review this morning, Williams said she was “hurt” by the incident she believed had been caused by Brear “misunderstanding” the situation.
“I was a bit hurt and taken aback by the attack in court yesterday,” Williams said. “We would have happily disclosed the information if we thought it was relevant.
“Phil Brear completely misunderstood what we were asking William Hill for and why, so his response and the information provided was irrelevant. It was unfortunate and rather unfair to indicate that there was a lack of candour.
“As counsel pointed out, if they had asked about it when they received the papers a week earlier we would have provided the papers and sorted out Phil’s misunderstanding,” she added.
The case continues.