BCA loses Court Challenge, 17 More Poker Venues Coming in UK

The British Casino Association (BCA) has lost its high court challenge against British government plans for 17 new casinos, including the first Las Vegas-style super casino, which they claimed could cost them up to GBP 120 million a year in lost profits and drive many of them out of business.

The BCA, which represents more than 90 percent of existing British casinos, had challenged the legality of Paragraph 65 of Schedule 4 of the Transitional Order made under the 2005 Gambling Act which paved the way for the 17 new casinos. They claimed discrimination and accused Culture secretary Tessa Jowell in court of treating existing establishments with "blatant unfairness."

But Justice Langstaff ruled at London's High Court that the legal challenge failed on all counts, saying there was no justification in law to challenge the plans simply because existing casino operators think either that they will be subjected to significant commercial disadvantage, or that it will 'unfairly deny them an opportunity of commercial benefit, or both'.

So the judge ruled the Transition Order of the 2005 Gambling Act was "properly made" and ordered BCA to pay the government's costs.

The legal action was backed by four companies: Gala Casinos Ltd, Rank Group PLC's Grosvenor Casinos Ltd, Harrah's Entertainment Inc's London Clubs International Ltd, and Genting Bhd's Stanley Casinos Ltd. These four companies operate 116 of the 138 existing casinos in Great Britain.

Eleven of the planned new casinos would operate in the same areas as existing premises already licensed under the 1968 Gaming Act.

Responding to the decision, The British Casino Association said 'very substantial' inequalities between the treatment of new casinos and existing casinos pose a threat to jobs and the commercial viability of a number of long-standing businesses.

"The transitional order, which determines the current inequality of treatment between new casinos and the existing British casino industry, has never been debated by Parliament," said BCA chairman Penny Cobham.

"We remain concerned that it was introduced without a formal and specific consultation with the industry and other stakeholders at the relevant time. It appears that a fair consultation requires simply that views can be proffered but there is no obligation to respond to, or discuss, them."

Noting Justice Langstaff's statement that it is up to the executive to decide gambling policy and the entitlements of the existing casinos, she added, "We urge the Government to take this opportunity to look again at the provisions so as to secure a better balance between fair competition, consumer choice and protection and will be seeking to work the DCMS [Department for Culture Media and Sport] to achieve this."

"... The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it welcomed the ruling that its policy 'was fairly and properly made' ..."

Read Related Article: