The High Court ruled that a charity holding a licence under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 could use a commercial company such as Omega Leisure Limited to run its lottery, including bingo, provided promotion and agency costs stayed within the statutory 40% limit. It also declared that the “pongo” machines described in the evidence were not gaming machines under the Finance Act 1975.
The ruling followed a dispute over Omega’s planned bingo operation in Cork. The company had fitted out premises owned by the Barber family. After a District Court warrant was issued, gardaí raided the premises and seized bingo-related items. Omega then sought declarations and other relief against Superintendent Charles Barry and State defendants.
Justice Clarke said the District Court’s licensing role did not cover the central legal questions in this case: whether a licensed lottery could be run through a large commercial agent and whether the machines amounted to gaming machines. He found that Omega had standing to seek declarations because the State’s position could prevent it from carrying on its business. The court also found that the dispute was not moot, given existing and potential agency arrangements with licensed charities.
On the agency model, the judge said the Act expressly allowed up to 40% of gross proceeds to be spent on promotion and commission, without limiting how that commission could be paid or the scale of the agent’s business. The declarations did not give Omega blanket approval: each lottery still had to comply with the Act, including the 40% cap, and the District Court retained its role in considering objections to licence applications on the grounds identified in earlier Supreme Court authority.
The court’s second declaration concerned the machines described in the evidence: players used a coin slot to put a permanently printed bingo card into play, while a separate random number generator supplied the numbers. Justice Clarke concluded that the machine itself did not determine the game’s outcome, as required by the statutory definition of a gaming machine.
The judge dismissed Omega’s claims that Superintendent Barry had committed misfeasance in public office and that the search and seizure amounted to trespass or detinue. He was not satisfied that Barry had been subjectively reckless about the lawfulness of his actions when seeking and executing the warrant. The court made no further declarations or injunctions and reserved the question of costs for a further hearing.