Leading Irish bookie Ivan Yates has said punters can expect lower betting costs "in due course" following the settlement at the High Court yesterday of a dispute between 59 Irish bookmakers and the British Horseracing Board (BHB).

The row was about agreements under which the Irish bookies paid fees and entered into licences for access to a racing information database. The action was settled on the basis of the termination of the licence agreements and a once-off payment of €300,000 from the Irish bookies to the BHB, who will also be able to continue to use the database until January 9th, 2006, when they hope to have an alternative information service. Both sides will also pay their own legal costs.

The settlement was announced by Mr Bill Shipsey SC, with Mr Brian Murray SC, for the Irish bookies, to Mr Justice Peter Kelly on the third day of the High Court hearing yesterday. Mr Paul Gallagher SC represented the BHB. On the application of the parties, the judge struck out the action with no order for costs.

Afterwards, Mr Yates, speaking on behalf of the 59 plaintiffs, said that, as a result of the settlement, the bookies were looking forward "to providing our customers with lower costs. There will be a direct benefit out of this in due course." He also said the bookies hoped to reach an agreement with Satellite Information Services in relation to a range of data services.

Mr Greg Nicholls, CEO of the BHB, said the board was pleased to have reached a settlement "that backs up what we have always maintained - our contracts with Irish bookies were valid and have continued to be valid and reflect the significant value betting operators derive from British racing".

The case arose from the introduction in March 2001 by the BHB of a new licensing policy under which users of a racing database - which includes information compiled over years on registered horses, their owners and trainers and their handicap rating - were required to enter into a licensing agreement with the board.

That agreement provided the Irish bookmakers with information on a database, to which, the Irish side claimed, the BHB had no right. Three weeks ago, the BHB had "conceded they had no right", the court was told at the outset of the hearing on Tuesday.

It was argued that, without the licence, bookmakers could not obtain the race data and effectively could not operate. On that basis, they claimed, they had no option but to enter into the licence and did so under duress. They claimed the board informed them that signing the licence would not prejudice their rights, including rights to have their fees repaid if a legal challenge to the licence arrangement by the English firm William Hill was successful before the European Court of Justice.

It was argued that the effect of a preliminary ruling by the ECJ in the Hill case was that the board could not lawfully claim the protection of the EC directive or of copyright laws for the database. The Irish bookies claimed the use of the race data by them did not infringe any database rights and they did not require a licence from the board to receive, display or use the race data.

On that basis, they claimed the agreements with the BHB were void and they were entitled to repayment of all monies paid to the board on foot of those agreements.

The defendants denied the agreements were void and pleaded they had to be construed in the context of the entire contractual arrangements.