header-logo header-logo

06 March 2024
Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Lottery appeal dismissed but may spin consumer rethink

A Court of Appeal judge has suggested the Law Commission reviews consumer law after dismissing an appeal by a lottery player whose £1m win turned out to be a computer glitch

Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 185 concerned an instant win game on the National Lottery website. She clicked ‘confirm’ to agree to the terms and conditions—a link at the bottom of the page led to the small print with hyperlinks to other terms—and played the game. The animations appeared to show she had won £1m—she quickly took a screenshot and rang Camelot without clicking ‘Finish’. Camelot told her she must click ‘Finish’ to complete the game. Sadly, when she did so, the screen showed she had only won £10.

The mistake was due to a coding issue, which generated an error in the Java software.

Joan Parker-Grennan sued for £1m, contending she followed the rules and any software error was Camelot’s problem, not hers. The High Court held for Camelot. The claimant’s appeal raised three issues: (i) Were Camelot’s terms incorporated in the contract? (ii) If so, were certain of those terms rendered unenforceable by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999? (iii) And as a matter of construction, did she win £1m or £10?

Giving the main judgment, Lady Justice Andrews held the claimant won £10 only, the terms were effectively incorporated, and none were onerous, unusual or unfair.

However, Andrews LJ said the case ‘squarely raised the issue of what needs to be done to incorporate standard terms and conditions into a contract for goods or services which is made online’.

‘So far as we are aware,’ she said, ‘this is the first case in which that issue has been considered by this court.’

She concluded: ‘The issues in this case have highlighted the complexity of balancing the needs of traders to publicise their terms and conditions with the needs of consumers to access and understand those terms. Given that a decade has passed since the last report of the Law Commission the time might be ripe for another, evidence-based, review of this area of law.’

Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Consumer
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll