CAMELOT UK LOTTERIES LIMITED v THE GAMBLING COMMISSION

On an application to lift an automatic suspension in a concession procurement challenge, the court applies the principles governing interim injunctions. It asks whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would adequately compensate each side, and which course carries the least risk of injustice.

A claimant need only cross a low threshold to show a serious issue. Standing under regulation 52(1) of the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 is fact-sensitive and does not invariably depend upon submitting a tender.

Commercial loss, including the loss of a special-purpose business, may be adequately compensable where projected profits are quantifiable. Alleged reputational harm requires cogent evidence of significant financial loss that damages could not fairly quantify. The public interest, the successful bidder’s interests and the consequences of delay are relevant to the balance of convenience.

The Gambling Commission conducted a competition for a ten-year statutory licence to operate the National Lottery. Allwyn Entertainment Limited was selected as preferred applicant and Camelot UK Lotteries Limited as reserve applicant. Camelot, related companies and several IGT companies challenged the evaluation under the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016.

The claims triggered an automatic suspension preventing the Commission from entering into the enabling agreement or granting the Fourth Licence. The Commission applied to lift that suspension. The claimants opposed the applications and sought an expedited trial.

The immediate questions were whether each claim raised a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would adequately compensate the affected parties, and where the balance of convenience lay. Questions of limitation and standing arose in determining whether some claimants had crossed the serious-issue threshold.

1. Applications granted. The automatic suspension was lifted, permitting the Commission to enter into the enabling agreement with Allwyn and subsequently award it the Fourth Licence.

2. Each claim raised a serious issue to be tried. The threshold was low and the court should not conduct a mini-trial. Camelot Global’s knowledge for limitation purposes could not be resolved without fuller evidence. Standing under regulation 52(1) of the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 depended upon whether each claimant was an economic operator which suffered, or risked suffering, loss or damage because of the alleged breach. Tendering was highly relevant but not necessarily decisive; the inquiry was fact-sensitive.

3. Damages would adequately compensate Camelot. Camelot UK’s cessation of business followed from the expiry and terms of its existing licence, rather than destruction of an otherwise continuing enterprise. Its projected revenue and profit under the Fourth Licence made the alleged loss quantifiable. Camelot Global’s anticipated supply-contract loss was also quantifiable. The evidence did not establish significant, irrecoverable or fairly unquantifiable reputational loss.

4. Damages would also adequately compensate IGT. Its extensive global lottery experience and business remained available to support future bids. Any specific investment, staffing or technology losses were ordinary risks of an unsuccessful tender and could be quantified.

5. The potential unlawfulness of the procurement did not itself make damages inadequate. Otherwise damages would be inadequate whenever the serious-issue threshold was crossed. The statutory scheme expressly contemplated damages as a possible remedy and allowed suspension to be lifted before lawfulness had been determined.

6. Damages would not adequately compensate the Commission if the suspension remained and the claims failed. Delay to the Fourth Licence would postpone increased contributions to good causes and other licence benefits. Timely funding mattered, and losses to current beneficiaries would be real, difficult to quantify and incapable of ready monetary compensation. Those consequences were relevant notwithstanding that they would not be suffered directly by the Commission, because they engaged its statutory functions.

7. The balance of convenience independently favoured lifting the suspension. Even an expedited trial would materially delay transition. An interim licence risked contravening the statutory 15-year longstop and procurement requirements. Partial implementation or partial lifting would expose the Commission and Allwyn to serious operational and commercial risks. The public interest and the least risk of irremediable injustice therefore favoured allowing the award to proceed.

This was a first-instance determination of applications to lift the automatic procurement suspension and for expedition. Parallel judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court had been stayed by consent pending withdrawal, settlement or further order.