Lauren Parsons, Senior Associate at Berry Smith, considers the recent ruling in Parker-Grennan -v- Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd EWCA Civ 185.
Background
In 2023 Mrs Parker-Grennan claimed against Camelot in relation to an Instant Win Game she had played on the National Lottery website. The game gave players a chance to win between £5 and £1m after matching a number generated to a winning number.
When Mrs Parker-Grennan played, an animation in the game showed that she had matched the number “15”, which started to flash, and she was informed she had won £10. Mrs Parker-Grennan also saw she matched a second number which had a prize of £1m, although that number did not flash, and no notification was given that she had won that sum.
Camelot refused to pay more than £10, stating that, on a proper interpretation of the terms on its website, she had only won £10, and that the animation display had no impact on the prize she had won. They stated a coding error was responsible for the animations but that, at the point of purchase, a random play number was generated, and that this determined what prize was won, not the animation.
The claim was heard before the High Court who found that (1) Camelot had made players aware of their terms and conditions, (2) users had to accept the terms prior to playing, and (3) this was sufficient to ensure the terms were incorporated into the contract.
The High Court also considered whether the terms were unfair, onerous, or unusual in any way and, ultimately, determined they were not.
Concluding its judgment, the High Court ruled that, on a proper interpretation of the contract, Mrs Parker-Grennan had won £10. The High Court struck out Mrs Parker-Grennan’s application for summary judgment and informed her that, without expert evidence to contradict Camelot’s position on its website operation, her claim would suffer the same fate.
Appeal
Mrs Parker-Grennan appealed to the Court of Appeal, who handed down judgment on 01 March 2024.
The appeal rested on three points: (1) were Camelot’s terms incorporated into the contract, (2) if so, were any of those terms unfair and, as a result, unenforceable, and (3) on a proper construction of the terms, has Mrs Parker-Grennan won £10 or £1m.
In response to those questions, the Court of Appeal determined that (1) the terms were effectively incorporated into the contract, (2) none of the terms were unfair, onerous, or unusual, and (3) on proper construction, Mrs Parker-Grennan had won £10.
Conclusion
Whilst the judgment offers clear guidance on the application of consumer contracts legislation to gambling contracts, it also has implications for all contracts concluded online when one party seeks to incorporate its terms by requiring the other to tick a box.
In fact, the Court of Appeal stated that:
“This case is not about online retail but about online gambling, but it has squarely raised the issue of what needs to be done to incorporate standard terms and conditions into a contract for goods or serviced which is made online. So far as we are aware, this is the first case in which that issue has been considered by this Court.”
The judgment confirms that the general rules for incorporating contractual terms remain good law.
However, it needs to be remembered that these rules came about in an era where online contracts were not commonplace. It is also a fact that the majority of people will simply tick a box without actually reading the terms and conditions it references.
As such, the Court of Appeal ended its judgment in suggesting that now would seem like a good time for the Law Commission to review this area of law. Until such a review takes place, the take-away is that consumers should ensure they read terms and conditions; not simply conduct a tick box exercise and online retailers should ensure terms and conditions are drawn to consumer attention
Berry Smith’s Dispute Resolution team is more than happy to assist with any contractual dispute you may have and is regularly instructed by both business and consumers. Please do not hesitate to contact us on 02920 345 511 or disputeresolution@berrysmith.com
