BOOKMAKERS’ APPLICATION FOR AN INTERDICT DISMISSED

In February 2014 application was made by 39 bookmakers and the Gauteng Off-Course Bookmakers' Association for an interdict against Phumelela, Gold Circle, Kenilworth Racing, Tellytrack and others to ensure that the applicants continue receiving "the televised broadcasting of live, real-time horseracing events" on the same terms as prevailed up until 31 January 2014, pending the outcome of the Gauteng Off-Course Bookmakers Association's complaints to the Gauteng, Eastern Cape and National Gambling Boards.
Yesterday the parties were informed that the application had been dismissed and that the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of Gold Circle, Kenilworth Racing and Tellytrack. The applicants and Phumelela were granted leave to approach the court at a later stage, on augmented papers, to deal with the issue of costs arising from this application.

TELLYTRACK PRESS RELEASE

www.sportingpost.co.za/2014/05/tellytrac...lytrack-1-half-time/

Bookies 0 – Tellytrack 1 (half time)
Last updated on May 20th, 2014

The interdict sought by a group of bookmakers to ensure that they could continue to receive the Tellytrack broadcasts on the same terms as before was dismissed in the High Court. Bookmakers objected to an increase in cost for receiving the broadcasts, deemed to be unreasonable and as yet without permission from provincial Gambling Boards. Tellytrack maintained it was entitled to a market related fee for such broadcasts, and that the proposed increase did not need Gambling Boards approval.

The court held that it was not in a position ‘to make any call beyond forming some prima facie views’, and that it would premature for it to intervene prior to rulings from the Gambling Boards. The court observed that it appeared that the Gambling Boards had been remiss in their statutory duty to make a timeous decision on the matter. Once this duty has been complied with, the court left the door ajar for further action. This includes the matter of costs between the applicants (the bookmakers) and one of the applicants, Phumelela.

The court raised a suspicion that Phumelela might not at all times have acted in good faith, and therefore delayed the decision about the awarding of costs until the Gambling Boards had given their ruling.