Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd [1949] AC 398
Breach of statutory duty; whether bookmaker has right of action under the Betting and Lotteries Act 1934
Facts
Mr Cutler was a bookmaker who carried on his business at a greyhound track occupied by the respondents. He claimed that as occupiers of a licensed racing track they were in breach of their statutory obligation under s11(2)(b) Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 for failing to provide him with an appropriate space on the track where he could conveniently conduct his business. He sought an injunction preventing them from denying him access to the track on race days.
Issues
The respondents were in breach of their statutory duty and Mr Cutler claimed that s11 of the 1934 Act created a cause of action to those in the specific class it was designed to protect. The obligations imposed by s11 were designed primarily to protect bookmakers and Mr Cutler was, therefore, a member of the particular class the duty was intended to protect and was entitled to seek a remedy. The respondents contended Mr Cutler had no right of action for breach of statutory duty.
Decision/Outcome
Mr Cutler had no cause of action. The whole of a statute must be examined when considering whether breach of a statutory duty creates an individual right of action. The primary purpose of the statute was to regulate the conduct of betting at racecourses. Where the statute provides for specific remedies for breach, then generally performance cannot be enforced in any other manner, unless it is designed to protect a particular class of person who may suffer injury as a result of its contravention. As the primary purpose of the 1934 Act was to regulate racecourses, no individual right of action lay for a bookmaker who suffered harm because of a breach of statutory duty.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd [1949] AC 398, which remains a leading House of Lords authority on the tort of breach of statutory duty. The principles it established — particularly that the whole statute must be examined to determine whether a private right of action was intended, and that the existence of alternative statutory remedies is a strong indicator against an implied civil action — continue to be applied by the courts.
The Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 has since been repealed, but this does not affect the continuing authority of the case as a statement of general common law principle. Later cases, including X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 and O’Rourke v Camden LBC [1997] AC 188, have affirmed and developed the same approach. More recently, the Supreme Court considered the tort in R (Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4 and related contexts, without disturbing the core Cutler principles. The article is suitable for students studying this area of tort law, though readers should be aware that the broader law on breach of statutory duty has been substantially affected in employment contexts by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which removed the general civil right of action for breach of health and safety regulations in most workplace cases — a development unrelated to the subject matter of this case but relevant to students studying the tort more widely.
