European Gaming Lawyer magazine Autumn 2015 | Page 12

High Court rules UK judgment for gambling
debt is unenforceable in Ireland

I

n Sporting Index Limited v
John O’Shea [2015] IEHC
407, the High Court
allowed an appeal against
an order of the Master of
Irish High Court deeming enforceable a
judgment, obtained in the County Court in
London, in respect of losses arising from the
defendant’s online spread betting account in
the amount of €118,000. The High Court
held that the applicable legislative regime in
Ireland, namely the Gaming and Lotteries
Act, 1956, prohibits the enforcement of
betting contracts as they are manifestly
contrary to public policy, and the court was
thus prohibited from recognising the order
of the London court.
Facts
The defendant (an Irish resident) opened
an online spread betting account with the
plaintiff, a U.K. based company specialising
in sports spread betting. The defendant
placed an unsuccessful bet on a Heineken
Cup rugby match, and as a result, his
online betting account became overdrawn,
resulting in liability for gambling debts.

12 | European Gaming Lawyer | Autumn Issue | 2015

The plaintiff issued legal proceedings
against the defendant in London, and
obtained two judgments. The first judgment,
in the amount of EUR €118,000 related to
the defendant’s gambling debts. The second
judgment concerned the plaintiff ’s costs
in relation to a failed application by the
defendant to set aside the first judgment,
which was in the sum of STG £17,500.
The Master of the Irish High Court
made Orders deeming both judgments
enforceable in Ireland, and it is these Orders
which were appealed in the present case.
The defendant alleged that the
enforceability of the judgments would be
contrary to Section 36(2) of the Gaming
and Lotteries Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act),
which prohibits the enforcement of betting
contracts. The defendant relied on articles
34(1) and 34(3) of the Brussels Regulation
(44/2001) as the basis for his assertion that
the judgments should not be recognised in
Ireland.
The Law
The Brussels Regulation, which provides
for the effective enforceability of

judgments in other Member States, allows
for certain exceptions to the otherwise
harmonious enforcement of judgments.
The Regulation was incorporated into
Irish law under the Jurisdiction of
Courts and Enforcement of Judgments
(Amendment) Act, 2012.
Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation
provides that a judgment shall not be
recognised: “(1) if such recognition is
manifestly contrary to public policy in the
Member State in which recognition is sought”
or “(3) it is irreconcilable with a judgment
given in a dispute between the same parties
in HY[X