Supreme Court of Appeal rules punter’s $150,000 debt invalid on paperwork grounds

Victoria’s Supreme Court of Appeal has wiped a punter’s $150,000 debt to a bookmaker due to paperwork failures.

A punter has been able to avoid paying a $150,000 debt to a bookmaker after a long-running court case. Picture: Nicole Garmston

Victoria’s Supreme Court of Appeal has wiped a punter’s $150,000 debt after ruling paperwork failures rendered the bets invalid.

Bookmaker David McLauchlan took action against punter Allen Ng after the punter incurred hefty losses between February and April 2020.

The County Court ruled in McLauchlan’s favour in 2022, ordering Ng to pay the debt and costs before the higher court overturned the verdict earlier this month.

The appellate court, comprising three justices, found select telephone bets in April 2020 constituted “unauthorised gambling”.

While the bets taken were properly recorded with Racing Victoria, along with Ng’s personal details, including driver’s licence, McLauchlan failed to obtain a signed authority, as required under Telephone Betting Rules.

* Monday Racebook: Gilbert Gardiner’s Caulfield horses to follow, forgive

Justices Maree Kennedy, Cameron Macauley and Kevin Lyons ruled the debt did not stand, as a result.

“In summary, we consider that the judge erred in concluding that the relevant telephone bets were not ‘unauthorised gambling’,” the Court of Appeal justices ruled.

“Telephone betting between a client and a bookmaker is not conducted in accordance with the Ministerial approval without a signed written authority from that client having been lodged with Racing Victoria.

“There was no suggestion that the respondent had obtained anything resembling a written, signed authority from the applicant.”

An earlier court heard, Ng placed 270 bets with McLauchlan, a registered bookmaker for 49 years, on credit and mostly by telephone from February 1, 2020 and April 18, 2020.

A Victorian Supreme Court ruling means bookmakers will need to have their paperwork perfect in order to collect debts from punters. Picture: Getty Images.

McLauchlan paid Ng’s wins immediately or soon thereafter and vice versa with losses.

McLauchlan paid $104,894.50 to Ng, while the punter returned $88,600 during the wagering window.

The transactions stalled after Ng lost $152,000 via telephone best placed on April 14, 15 and 18. Ng repaid $2000 on September 21, 2020.

* Spring preview: Pride, Busuttin-Young, Bridge discuss key targets

Ng, in the Country Court trial in August 2022, claimed bets were unauthorised gambling as McLauchlan failed to comply with obligations, a signed authority, under bookmaker licensing rules.

Further claims included the bookmaker’s failure to communicate to Ng a responsible gambling message and take steps to establish betting limits.

Ng claimed McLauchlan was obliged not to take the bets, on April 14-15 and 18, because he displayed indicators of distress that may be related to problem gambling, including changing gambling patterns.

A bookmaker found to have engaged in unauthorised gambling could be subject to a fine of almost $200,000 and/or a two-year jail term.

Originally published as Supreme Court of Appeal rules punter’s $150,000 debt invalid on paperwork grounds