Kucukkoylu v Ozcan

Where parties jointly purchase a lottery ticket, the court may find a contract governing their respective beneficial interests in any winnings. An agreement to play on a 50/50 or equal basis ordinarily supports an express or implied term that winnings are shared equally. Such a term may also be implied where it reflects the parties’ obvious but unexpressed intention and is necessary to give the arrangement business efficacy. The court determines the existence and terms of the agreement on the balance of probabilities, assessing the whole evidential picture, including contemporaneous documents and objective evidence.

The claimant, an employer, claimed sole entitlement to a £1 million UK Millionaire Raffle prize won by a Euromillions ticket purchased after his employee, the defendant, encouraged him to play following a dream. The claimant said that he alone selected and paid for the ticket. The defendant alleged that they agreed to purchase lottery tickets jointly on a half-and-half basis, contributed equally to the cost, and selected different boards. The central issues were whether such an agreement existed and whether it entitled the defendant to half the winnings.

1. Findings of fact. The defendant’s account was preferred on the determinative issues. The claimant and defendant jointly played the lottery on 30 January 2012. The claimant completed Board A, while the defendant completed Board B and selected the Lucky Dip for Board C. They agreed to play on a 50/50 or half-and-half basis and contributed equally to the purchase price. The defendant retained the receipt and play slips, while the claimant retained the tickets.
2. The CCTV footage and genuine play slips provided more reliable evidence than the witnesses’ accounts. They supported the conclusion that two people had completed the boards and that the defendant had selected numbers himself. The court treated the evidence of the parties and several witnesses with caution because of inconsistencies, late additions and admitted lies.
3. Contractual effect. The parties entered into a contract to play the lottery jointly on an equal basis. It was either an express term that winnings would be shared equally or a term implied in fact. The term reflected the obvious but unexpressed intention of the parties and was necessary to give business efficacy to the agreement.
4. The defendant therefore acquired an equal beneficial interest in the prize. A declaration was made that the prize money from the winning ticket should be shared equally between the claimant and defendant. The procedural directions in CPR Practice Direction 40E applied.