Lee v WPBSA - Case Summary

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 22nd Feb 2024
Wordcount: 395 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This legal case summary was produced by one of our law experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNix.com.

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Summary: Legal Case Summary: Professional snooker player challenge against 12-year ban for match-fixing.


Stephen Lee, a professional snooker player, was found guilty of match-fixing allegations arising from games dating back to 2008. As a result, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) imposed a 12-year ban.

Lee appealed the judgment from the WPBSA, arguing that the penalties imposed were excessive.


The case focused on whether the penalties imposed by the WPBSA for match-fixing, particularly, the 12-year ban, were reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with the regulations laid down by the Association.


The judgement demonstrates that the courts give latitude to governing bodies in sports disputes, rarely intervening in their disciplinary procedures.

The case highlighted the broad discretion sports governing bodies have in imposing penalties for breaches of their rules. It has reinforced the importance of fair and transparent procedures in sports disciplinary matters.


The original ruling by the WPBSA was upheld. The Court found the penalties imposed, including the 12-year ban, were under the discretion of the WPBSA and commensurate with Lee's misconduct. The length of the ban was considered to be necessary and proportionate, aiming to deter other players from similar corrupt activities.


  • Stephen Lee v World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association [2014] EWHC 3021 (QB) (17 September 2014)

Journalist Brief

In this landmark case, professional Snooker player, Stephen Lee, contested a 12-year ban imposed by the WPBSA over match-fixing allegations from games in 2008. The Court upheld the ruling stating that it was within the regulatory body's purview and discretion to impose penalties, and that the punishment was commensurate with the level of misconduct. The case sets a significant precedent for the level of deference courts provide to sports' governing bodies in handling disciplinary procedures.


Who was the appellant in this case?

Answer: The appellant was professional snooker player, Stephen Lee.

What was the allegation against Stephen Lee?

Answer: Stephen Lee was accused of match-fixing in games from 2008.

What was the outcome of this case?

Answer: The Court upheld the previous ruling and confirmed the 12-year ban imposed by WPBSA.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider