Hillside (New Media) Limited v. Bjarte Baasland

2010 EWHC 3336 (Comm) (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D provides facilities for online gambling through a website to which I refer as the 'bet 365 website'. The website is owned by Hillside and operated by them through servers in England. Hillside's premises and staff operations are also in England. Three kinds of bets can be placed through the bet 365 website: (i) bets on sporting events; (ii) bets on games of chance, such as poker, blackjack, and baccarat; and (iii) bets on fixed-odds games of chance, such as Keno, Hi-Lo and 'Heads or Tails.' Before 1 September 2007 sports bets and games bets that were placed through the bet 365 website were processed by D, and those by way of casino gambling were processed by Bet 365 NV. When on 1 September 2007 the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, the Bet 365 group re-organized the business. The business of Bet 365 NV was transferred to Hillside Gibraltar under an asset purchase agreement dated 31 August 2007. Thereafter casino gambling and games bets have been processed by Hillside Gibraltar. D continues to process sports bets. D opened an account for gambling in Norwegian kroner on 20 January 2005 and an account for gambling in US dollars on 26 August 2005. He placed over 5,000 sports bets, and his net loss from them was nearly 15 million kroner and nearly $220,000, in total the equivalent of about £1.5 million. He placed some 220,000 bets upon casino gambling, and his net loss from them was some 11.8 million kroner and nearly $350,000, in total the equivalent of over £1.4 million. D bet through the website from Norway. Most of his bets were placed from Germany, although some were placed from Norway and the Czech Republic and, on one occasion, from Denmark. By 2008, D realized he had a problem and tried to negotiate his way out. Ps paid nothing to D. D threatened to institute legal proceedings claiming that the matter was justiciable in the Norwegian courts and governed by Norwegian law. They argued, in a brief summary, that there was liability (i) in negligence, on the basis that there 'could have [been] effectuated and implemented general control measures, inspections, warnings or probes to locate this type of player', and (ii) on the basis of 'non-statutory rules regarding strict liability' because the damage to D was 'constant, typical and extraordinary. Ps told D and his lawyer to bug off. P issued these proceedings. The court dismissed D's challenge on jurisdiction. D has not served a defense. P applied for summary judgment and D did not serve evidence in response to it. D did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.