Stevebook Ltd v The Gambling Regulatory Authority [2019 SCJ 96]
Facts
S Ltd was licensed to operate as a bookmaker conducting fixed odds betting on local races, outside the racecourse at Port Louis.
On the 24thof October 2018, the Gambling Regulatory Authority (“GRA”) informed S Ltd that “in line with condition 19(a) of your conditions to licence”, the Board of GRA had “resolved to relocate all off-course bookmakers conducting fixed odd betting on local horse racing to the Champ de Mars with effect from the racing season 2019”.
A failure to relocate its operations to Champde Mars as from the racing season 2019 would result in the current licence to operate as an off-course bookmaker for local horse racing not being renewed.
S Ltd applied and obtained leave for the judicial review of the above-communicated decision of the Board of GRA. Consequently, S Ltd sought an order to quash the said decision as being ultra vires, unreasonable under the “Wednesbury Principles”, irrational, unfair and in breach of the legitimate expectations of S Ltd, and in breach of the rules of natural justice.
Held
The Court based itself on section 44 (2) and (3) of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act (“the Act”) which reads:
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Board may, on application made for the conduct of fixed odds betting on local races, issue –
(a) a bookmaker licence authorising the applicant to operate at the racecourse; or
(b) a bookmaker licence authorising the applicant to operate at only one place outside the racecourse as may be approved by the Board.
(3) No bookmaker licence shall be issued to an applicant to operate both at the racecourse and outside the racecourse.
Accordingly, the Court held that GRA cannot by the use of a condition on a licence issued for fixed odds betting off-course, seek to overstep what was provided for clearly under section 44 of the Act. The GRA may either issue a licence for on-course betting ora licence for off-course betting to an applicant.
It cannot interpret a condition in a licence to by-pass the clear provisions of the Act. The method adopted by GRA to implement its stated change of policy was clearly wrong and irregular, as per its letter of 24thof October 2018.
The decision of the GRA was quashed as being irregular, irrational and unreasonable.
Case commentary
The purpose of a judicial review is to look at the legality of a decision and at the decision-making process and not to act as a court of appeal.
Reference
Administrative law – judicial review – decision – wrong – irregular – unreasonable