Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Horseracing and gambling have gone hand-in-hand for many years. It is a lucrative market for those who provide odds, information, and bookmakers. Indeed, in 2020, the turnover for off-course horse betting was roughly 4 billion pounds. It is no wonder, therefore, that those who handle and distribute this data guard it jealously, as the case of Racing Partnership Ltd and others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 1156 (Ch) perfectly exemplifies.

The factual background of Racing Partnership Ltd and others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd & ors

The Racing Partnership, the first Claimants (‘C1’), produced live betting and horseracing data collated at racecourses owned by the second Claimants (‘C2’), Arena Leisure Limited. The data comprised two elements. The first was betting prices, calculated by an algorithm fed by fixed odds being offered by on-course bookmakers. This information is, of course, vital for off-course bookmakers. These prices are produced 8-10 minutes before the start of each race. The second type of data was raceday data: information specific to the racecourse on the day of the race (weather, jockeys, stewards’ inquiries, results, etc.)

The claim

One of the Defendants, SIS also supplied information to off-course bookmakers, and had an agreement with the Tote (another of the Defendants), under which the Tote delivered raceday data to SIS. C1 and C2 brought proceedings in the High Court against the defendants for infringements of their rights in respect of horseracing data and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. According to the claimants, SIS had conspired with LC, Betfred and the Tote to injure C1 by unlawful means

The unlawful means were:

  • Copyright infringement;
  • Breach of C1’s database right;
  • Breach of contract; and
  • Breach of confidence.

The claimants also brought a direct claim for breach of confidence by the Tote (and by SIS) arising out of the Tote’s collection and distribution to SIS of the raceday data.

Copyright infringement

In order for a claim of copyright infringement to succeed, there must first be established a copyright. For this to exist, there must be work of sufficient skill, labour, or judgment as to justify it. In this case, Mr Justice Zacaroli arrived at the conclusion that, although copyright might exist in the list of names of on-course bookmakers selected for the algorithm, the actual process of arriving at betting prices was “pure routine work”, incapable of being of sufficient skill, labour, or judgment for a copyright to subsist.

Sui generis database rights

A database right subsists in a database “if there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database”. SIS accepted that C1 was the owner of a database right, but denied infringing it. However, Zacaroli J agreed with SIS in this case that they merely consulted the database, and didn’t extract or re-utilise the data contained therein. “Extraction” means the “permanent or temporary transfer of [the] contents [of the database] to another medium”, and “Re-utilisation” means “making those contents available to the public by any means”, and as SIS had done neither, the claim for database right infringement failed.

Breach of contract

This claim related to C2 and the Tote. C2 contended that it allowed the Tote on-course solely for the purposes of collecting and distributing data for pool betting, and not for any other purposes. The breach of contract claim was based on two allegations:

  1. That the Tote collected data which was not required for pool betting; and
  2. That it distributed the data it was permitted to collect to SIS for non-pool betting purposes.

However, the Tote’s presence on racecourses was originally pursuant to a statutory right and there was no evidence of any agreement which regulated its activities in respect of pool betting on C2’s racecourses. The Tote was therefore not contractually bound to comply with C2’s terms and conditions of entry to its racecourses, which prohibited media attendees from exploiting data coverage of races on their own behalf. Accordingly, there was no contractual restriction on the Tote feeding raceday data to SIS.

Breach of confidence

The test for breach of confidence is a three-part test:

  1. The information must have the necessary quality of confidence;
  2. The information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and
  3. There must be an unauthorised use by the confidant to the detriment of the rights holder.

Zacaroli J came to the conclusion that, due to the significant commercial value of the information, even though it was only for a short period of time, there was commercial confidentiality. He also concluded that a reasonable person in the Tote’s position, appreciating that the information was acquired by it for the purposes of pool betting only, would also have appreciated that it was acquired in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, so the second limb was met. However, he also concluded that SIS neither actually knew that, nor turned a blind eye to whether, the Tote was unable lawfully to provide Raceday Data.

In terms of the unauthorised use, Zacaroli J held that the data provided by the Tote to SIS did extend beyond that which it collected for pool betting purposes.

Conspiracy

Having established the breach of confidence, the crucial element to the conspiracy claim overall became liability under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, where the unlawful means consisted of breach of confidence, depended upon knowledge (or blind-eye knowledge) that the claimant’s rights of confidence were infringed. As mentioned above, Although a reasonable person in SIS’s position would have appreciated that the Tote acquired the information in circumstances of confidence that precluded its use for fixed-odds betting, it neither actually knew that, nor turned a blind eye to whether, the Tote was unable lawfully to provide it with raceday data. Therefore, it did not have the requisite knowledge of unlawfulness consisting of breach of confidence for the purposes of the claim in conspiracy.

As such, overall, the claim failed.

Link to judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/1156.html#para49

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Testimonials

    4.80 Average

    293 Reviews

    Chris L

    It was a very efficient and effective service - Would recommend.

    Posted 15 hours ago

    Anonymous

    Exceeded my expectations. Very professional and proactive. I highly recommend them.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    The service provided to me by Redmans Solicitors was excellent and I would have no hesitation in recommending Chris. While I cannot get into the detail of the matter, it was very emotionally difficult for me and Chris was sensitive throughout and was clear that his motivation was arriving at a solution that helped me while I am unwell - and less about his own fee. His emotional intelligence was coupled with a very sharp and quick understanding of the complex facts of the matter and the legal arguments and he quickly formed a strong case working with me the whole way. Chris was particularly patient with me at what I found a stressful time, and I want to thank him personally for everything he did.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    A lovely, friendly and professional service. They advised me through my employment change. They where very responsive, keeping me updated and explaining everything in layman’s terms. No hidden charges. I would highly recommend them.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Philip H

    I was advised well and had a good experience using Redmans Solicitors.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Line v

    Good service and very helpful, informative

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Katarzyna Z

    Very prompt replies, good rates and competent staff.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Sudhir S

    Professional in approach and give good advice all the time during my settlement agreement with the Company. Fee wise slightly expensive compare to the initial estimates.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Aaron H

    Very grateful to Mel who was brilliant kept me informed and was really helpful when I needed her

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Alexia P

    The team at Redmans we're always professional and helpful throughout my case. The team were open to listening to me, understanding my situation and being clear about what they can support with.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Emma L

    So glad I chose Redmans to assist with my emplyment issue. From start to finish I received excellent service. Mel Chin had calm, methodical approach and she got me a far better result than I could have done on my own. Would not hesitate recommend far and wide.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Sam T

    I was extremely impressed with the support and advice that I received. The solicitors I worked with acted very quickly and were clear in their communications at every stage.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    I cannot thank Caroline enough for her empathetic help, advice and guidance in what was at times a very stressful situation. Always professional and available to answer any queries I had, I highly recommend Caroline and all the team at Redmans.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Robert M

    Chris Hadrill provided me with very efficient turn around of an employment offer from a US-based company. Chris reviewed the contract, identified key issues and offered sound/pragmatic advice and suggestions for improvement which I could then bring in non-legalese to my prospective employer. Employer accepted all the important changes Chris suggested and I accepted the job!! Very satisfied with the service.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Karen R

    Prompt, helpful and excellent service. Very professional and super quick. Very reasonable price for London. Definitely recommend and would use again.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service from Redmans, I would not hesitate to recommend this firm of solicitors. Thank you very much to the team, and especially Chris and Mel!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Siriana B

    Thorough, efficient, and always available to answer my queries. It was a pleasure to deal with.Thanks

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent speedy service

    Posted 1 month ago

    Robert

    Excellent service, very professional. would definitely use again.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mary B

    I was very happy with the work Chris did for me. I believe with his help I secured a more favourable outcome both financially and in terms of clauses contained in the legal agreement I ultimately signed. I had utmost trust and confidence in the advice Chris provided throughout. Chris kept me informed at every stage and I found him very efficient at bringing matters to a conclusion without unnecessary delay.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mark M

    I found Redmans very easy to work with. Mel was very responsive, her advice led to an improved settlement. . Recommended.!

    Posted 1 month ago