L & L Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 144 (TC)
Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited
1 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 185
Court of Appeal
A woman playing an online lottery thought she won £1 million due to a game glitch. The court said the lottery company did enough to make the rules clear (even if they were online), the glitch didn't change the actual result, and she only won £10 according to the game's rules.
Key Facts
- •Joan Parker-Grennan played an online National Lottery game and believed she won £1 million due to a software error displaying incorrect animations.
- •The actual prize awarded by Camelot's system was £10.
- •The case concerned the incorporation of standard terms and conditions in an online contract, specifically in online gambling.
- •Camelot's terms and conditions were accessible via hyperlinks and drop-down menus.
- •The appeal raised issues of incorporation, enforceability under the UTCCR, and contractual construction.
Legal Principles
Incorporation of standard terms into a contract requires reasonable steps to give notice, not necessarily reading.
Chitty on Contracts (34th ed), 15-010; O’Brien v MGN Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1279
Onerous or unusual clauses require specific attention; consumer protection legislation renders unfair terms unenforceable.
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433; UTCCR 1999; Consumer Rights Act 2015
Click-wrap agreements can incorporate terms, but reasonableness of notice is key; insufficient time or excessive hyperlinks may invalidate.
Case judgment
UTCCR Reg 7(2) (contra proferentem rule): ambiguous terms interpreted favorably to the consumer; does not reorder contractual provisions.
UTCCR Reg 7(2); R (Doneghan and others) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd [2021] EWHC 760 (Admin)
Dispute resolution clauses can be unfair if creating a significant imbalance unless reasonableness is demonstrated.
UTCCR; Longley v PPB Entertainment Ltd [2022] EWHC 977(QB)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Even under the accepted terms, the appellant only won £10 due to the construction of the contract. The software error didn't affect the outcome; Camelot took reasonable steps to incorporate terms, and no clauses were unfair under the UTCCR.