## Facts

- William Hill (Football) Ltd and Ladbroke (Football) Ltd were bookmakers operating in the United Kingdom sports-betting market.
- William Hill had for years distributed weekly fixed-odds football-betting coupons to customers.
- The coupons were printed sheets listing upcoming football matches and offering customers a structured set of wagering options.
- Each coupon presented multiple lists of bets (about sixteen), organized with headings, explanatory notes, and printed rules to guide customers in completing the coupon.
- William Hill did not claim copyright in the underlying match information or in the general idea of offering fixed-odds wagers; it claimed copyright in the coupon as a written table or compilation—especially the selection and arrangement of bet lists, headings, and notes.
- In 1959, Ladbroke entered the same market and circulated very similar coupons to customers.
- William Hill alleged that Ladbroke had copied a large portion of the coupon’s structure and text, including fifteen of the sixteen bet lists and much of the associated headings and notes.
- Ladbroke argued the coupon was akin to a trader’s catalogue showing goods for sale and lacked the kind of originality required for copyright protection.
- At trial, the Chancery Division (Lloyd-Jacob J) found that copying had occurred but held that copyright did not subsist in the coupon as such (granting only limited relief concerning the printed rules).
- The Court of Appeal reversed (Diplock LJ dissenting), holding the coupon was an original compilation and that Ladbroke had copied a substantial part.
- Ladbroke appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether William Hill’s football betting coupon qualified as an “original” literary work as a written table or compilation under the Copyright Act 1956.
2. Whether originality in a compilation can come from the author’s skill, labour, and judgment in selecting and arranging commonplace or public material.
3. Whether Ladbroke copied a substantial part of William Hill’s protected compilation.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed Ladbroke’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s order in William Hill’s favor.
- The coupon was an original literary work in the form of a compilation (a written table/compilation within the statutory definition of “literary work”).
- In assessing originality, the court treated the making of the coupon as a single process and did not exclude the work involved in deciding what bets to offer and how to arrange them.
- Ladbroke infringed because it reproduced a substantial part of William Hill’s protected work, including the great majority of the bet lists and much of the accompanying headings and notes.
- The injunction granted against Ladbroke was affirmed (with costs against Ladbroke).

## Legal Principles

- Under the Copyright Act 1956, a “literary work” includes a written table or compilation, and a betting coupon can fall within that category.
- “Original” does not mean new or inventive; it means the work originated from the author and reflects sufficient skill, labour, and judgment in its selection and arrangement.
- For compilations, originality is a matter of degree, assessed in light of the skill, labour, and judgment used to choose, organize, and present the material.
- The originality inquiry considers the work as a whole; a court should not split the process into “preliminary decisions” and “mere writing down” in a way that ignores the author’s contribution to the final document.
- The fact that individual parts of a compilation may be unprotected (because they are common, factual, or public) does not prevent copyright in the compilation if the overall selection and arrangement is sufficiently original.
- “Substantial part” is assessed qualitatively as well as quantitatively: taking what represents a substantial portion of the author’s contribution to the compilation can infringe even if the underlying data is free for all to use.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that William Hill’s football betting coupon was protected as an original compilation because its selection and arrangement of bet lists, headings, and notes reflected sufficient skill, labour, and judgment, and that Ladbroke infringed by copying a substantial part of that compiled structure and content, so the appeal was dismissed and injunctive relief stood.


Ladbroke v. William Hill, [1964] 1 All E.R. 465 (1964)