Peace has broken out between the bookmaker Geoff Banks and horse racing’s ruling body, which has settled a legal case that Banks raised after the Speculative Bid fiasco at Ascot last summer. Under the terms of the deal, the bookmaker will not be compensated for the loss he suffered as a result of the failures of officials that day, though he will receive a contribution towards his legal costs.
The settlement comes a month after the British Horseracing Authority’s lawyers managed to persuade a judge that the case should not be allowed to continue as a small claim because of its legal complexity. The result of that verdict was that Banks was exposed to the risk of having to pay the BHA’s legal expenses in the event of failure, a cost that he estimated would run into six figures.
Banks subsequently appealed to fellow bookmakers and even high-rolling punters to offer financial support that would allow him to continue with the case. He argued that it was in the interests of many parties to support his attempt to prove that the BHA owes a duty of care to bookmakers and bettors, but no such wider support was forthcoming.
A BHA press release said the settlement did not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by either party. It added that Banks and the BHA would work together in future to ensure that racing takes full account of the needs of the betting industry in its policy-making.
Nick Rust, chief executive of the BHA, said: “We have never accepted that a duty of care exists, as it would have serious implications for the funding of our sport and a direct impact on the livelihoods of participants. We are pleased that we have been able to settle the matter amicably with Mr Banks without him or the BHA incurring unnecessary additional legal costs.
“We take full responsibility for the initial error and it’s important that we learn from this incident to prevent it happening again. This case has been useful in that it helped us to examine our policies and performance, and we are grateful to Geoff for raising the matter and for the approach he is taking to help us learn and improve.
“We have asked Geoff if he would be willing to help the BHA by working closely with us on our policies that affect the bookmaking industry, given the impressive knowledge and vigour he has shown throughout this case.”
Banks was also quoted in the press release as saying: “I’m heartened by the honest attitude of Nick Rust and his team, not only to help resolve matters amicably, but to progress the relationship between the betting public and the sport. I feel we’ve gained a positive outcome from Ascot. I welcome the opportunity to work with the BHA on these matters going forward.”
It appears that neither side will offer further comment.
Banks’s complaint related to a major televised handicap at Ascot on King George day last summer, when the favourite, Speculative Bid, emerged riderless from the starting stalls. There was sustained official confusion about whether or not the horse should be treated as a runner for betting purposes, with the result that bookmakers found themselves paying out in full to backers of the winner and then also refunding stakes to backers of Speculative Bid. In ordinary circumstances, they would have been able to make an appropriate deduction from the sums paid to winning gamblers. Banks sought to recover from the BHA the cost of refunding those favourite-backers.
When his case ceased to be a small claim last month, Banks accused the BHA of using the threat of costs to “bully the case out of court”.
He added: “They want this case to be dead and buried. They know the best way to get rid of this case is to move it up [in the court system].”
But Judge Charles Harris QC, sitting in Oxford county court, said at the time that the case was too complex to proceed as a small claim. “It involves quite a lot of interesting, by which I mean not terribly clear, law,” he said. As Banks protested about the imbalance of spending power between the two sides, Harris replied: “This is something that always happens when David takes on Goliath.”
