Irvin Williams v Lotteries Committee

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Goonetilleke, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2024
• Docket Number: CLAIM No. CV 520 OF 2023
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)

Between:

Irvin Williams

Claimant

and

Lotteries Committee

Defendant

J.D. Financial Services Belize Ltd.

Interested Party

CLAIM No. CV 520 OF 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE

Certiorari — Right to a Fair Hearing — Lotteries Control Regulations (2011)

Appearances:

Mr. Allister Jenkins for the Claimant

Ms. Samantha Matute, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Defendant

Ms. Iliana Swift for the Interested Party

Goonetilleke, J.

1 The claimant on or about 24 ^th February 2021, paid Two Dollars ($2.00) and bought a Mega Bingo lottery ticket. The draw was held on the same date and the claimant's ticket possessed the winning numbers for the Jackpot prize of Six Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Three Dollars ($675,853.00). In order to collect the prize money, on the 1 ^st of March 2021, he presented the winning ticket to J.D. Financial Services Belize Ltd. (JDFS) — the Interested Party, who conducts the lottery. At that point, he was told that there were two other winners and that the Jackpot prize would be split in three. Accordingly, on the 1 ^st of March 2021, he received from JDFS a Cheque for One Hundred and Ninety-One Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-One and Sixty-Nine Cents ($191,491.69) which was one-third (1/3) of the Jackpot prize money, less tax. The claimant alleges that no one else presented any other winning ticket to collect the Jackpot prize. Dissatisfied with not being paid the full prize money, the claimant through his Attorney at law, referred the matter for arbitration to the Lotteries Committee (LC) – the defendant, which is a body created by the Lotteries Control Act.1 The LC upheld the decision of JDFS to pay one-third (1/3) of the Jackpot prize to the claimant and communicated its decision to the claimant by letter dated 14 ^th July 2023. The claimant then filed a claim for judicial review, challenging the decision of the LC, for failing to give him a fair hearing and to obtain a declaration that he is entitled to the full prize money.

2 Leave to apply for Judicial review was granted on 25 ^th October 2023, for:

• a) A declaration that the ex parte arbitration proceedings of the Lotteries Committee held on the 6 ^th of July 2023 is unlawful, arbitrary and irrational for breaching the Claimant's right to be heard and to a fair hearing and therefore void;

• b) A declaration that the decision of the Lotteries Committee as contained in the Letter dated 14 ^th July 2023, is unlawful, for being in breach of the Lotteries Control Regulations;

• c) An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Lotteries Committee as contained in the letter dated 14 ^th July 2023, by which the Lotteries Committee held that the Interested Party is not liable to make any further payments to the Claimant, for being in breach of the Claimant's

  right to be heard and to a fair hearing, and for being in breach of the Lotteries Control Regulations, and

• d) A declaration that the Claimant was the only winner of the Mega Bingo Jackpot Prize to whom the Jackpot Prize was payable in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Lotteries Control Regulations.

3 The claimant thereafter filed a claim form. The defendant and the interested party filed their defence and affidavits. All parties were granted an opportunity to file written submissions and an oral hearing was held on 21 ^st May 2024, at which all parties were heard.

4 Having considered the documents and submissions of parties, for the reasons set out below, this court grants to the claimant a declaration that the arbitration proceedings of the Lotteries Committee breached the right of the claimant to a fair hearing. Consequently, the claimant is entitled to an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Lotteries Committee contained in the letter dated 14 ^th July 2023.

The relevant facts

5 The chronology of the relevant facts is as follows:

• (a) Upon the claimant not receiving the full prize money, the attorney of the claimant by letter dated 9th August 2022, wrote to the LC requesting arbitration in terms of regulation 12 of the Lotteries Control regulations (2011). This letter was copied to the Attorneys of JDFS.

• (b) Therefore, the Attorneys of JDFS by letter dated 19 ^th August 2022, wrote to the LC to forward any correspondence on the matter to them.

• (c) Unknown to the claimant, by email of 10th August 2022, the LC wrote to JDFS referring to the draw of 24 ^th February 2022 and requested (a) the serial numbers of the winning tickets, (b) the serial number of the ticket that was claimed and (c) the amount paid to the winner.

• (d) On 30th September 2022, the claimant's Attorney not having received a response sent a reminder letter of even date stating that a response was awaited.

• (e) On 7th November 2022, the claimant's Attorney wrote an email, once again to remind the LC of the reference to arbitration and state that they were awaiting a response. This email was acknowledged for and on behalf of the LC on the same date and it was informed that the mail had been forwarded to the secretary of the LC for “ review and action”.

• (f) On the 8th of November 2022, an employee of JDFS by email informed the LC of the winning ticket of the claimant, his social security card and the amount paid out.2

• (g) The LC met sometime in December 2022, to consider the way forward with arbitration including obtaining legal advice.3

• (h) By letter dated 3rd May 2023, the LC informed the claimant's attorneys that it had sought legal advice from the Attorney General's Ministry in relation to the matter referred to arbitration and that the LC will arbitrate on the matter at the next committee meeting and will inform the decision in due course. This letter, however, was received by the claimant's Attorneys only on 7 ^th June 2023, when it was sent to them as a scanned copy by email of 7 ^th June 2023 with an apology for the delay in the process.

• (i) On the 4th of May 2023, the claimant filed Claim No. 259 of 2023, naming JDFS as the defendant, claiming damages for breach of contract for failure to pay out the full Jackpot prize money.

• (j) The claimant's attorneys on 12th June 2023, informed the LC that they had received the LC's letter only on 7 ^th June 2023 via email and objected that the matter was proceeding to arbitration without the claimant being heard. The letter also informed the LC that Claim No. 259 of 2023 had been filed in the High Court against JDFS and that they “ now await a determination of the High Court”.

• (k) Thereafter on 14th July 2023, the LC wrote to the attorneys of the claimant stating that the LC had met on the 6 ^th of June 2023, it had considered the letter of the claimant's attorney dated 9 ^th August 2022 and the information provided by JDFS and that as there were three winners to the 24 ^th of February 2021 draw. The letter also stated that JDFS was correct in dividing the winning sum into three parts and that the claimant was only entitled to one-third (1/3) of the cash prize. The letter also referred to the fact that the LC had sought and obtained legal advice. It also stated that “ The Arbitrator along with the members of the Lotteries Committee carefully went over the information as presented…”.

Submissions of Parties

6 It was submitted for the claimant that he was not at any stage, prior to the arbitration, informed of when the arbitration would take place. He was also not informed of what information was provided by JDFS to the LC for consideration and that both of these facts denied him a right to a fair hearing. The claimant states that the arbitral proceedings were held in his absence which meant that it was an ex-parte arbitral hearing.

7 In support of this argument the case of R. v. Secretary for the Home Department, Ex. parte Doody4 was cited. In that case, Lord Mustil stated that “ Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have the opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both”5.

8 The claimant also relied on the case of Hillaire Sears v. Parole Board et al.6, wherein the Caribbean Court of Justice held that there was no procedural fairness when a Parole Board had revoked the parole of the appellant in circumstances where the appellant was not aware of the information that was before the Parole Board.

9 It was also submitted on behalf of the claimant that the Court of Appeal in the case of Isaac Longsworth v Anglican Diocese et al7 had decided that the court had wide discretion to grant reliefs for claims of administrative orders in terms of Rule 56.13 (3) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). It was therefore submitted that the court could direct that the payment of the entire Jackpot Prize money could be paid to the claimant.

10 It was submitted for the defendant that the arbitration took place consequent to the request made by the claimant pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Lotteries Control Regulations (2011).

11 The Mega Bingo Lottery was a national lottery. In terms of Regulation 12(2), if the lottery was a national lottery, the LC may arbitrate informally. As such it was submitted for the defendant that the LC arbitrated informally by adopting a paper-based approach without an oral hearing and that it heard the claimant by considering

the complaint written by his attorneys and then sought the views of JDFS and decided the matter

12 It was further submitted that the hearing was not ex-parte as alleged and that through the paper-based approach, both parties were heard on paper.

13 It was also submitted that in terms of Regulation 10(2) where there was an unclaimed prize, fifty per cent (50%) of the unclaimed prize was paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the balance fifty per cent (50%) was put into...