James Robert Longley v PPB Entertainment Limited & Ors

A betting operator’s confirmation of the amount to be debited from a customer’s account does not, without clear language, constitute a counter-offer to accept a substantially larger stake. A unilateral mistake avoids an apparent contract only where the non-mistaken party had actual knowledge of the mistake. Constructive knowledge is relevant as evidence of actual knowledge, but is insufficient by itself.

A contractual error clause may apply where human error caused winnings to be incorrectly awarded. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, transparency and fairness are distinct requirements. An error clause limited to defined, objectively ascertainable circumstances was not unfair.

Mr Longley claimed £257,400 from three companies trading as Paddy Power. During a telephone call, he asked to place a £1,300 each-way bet. The operator mistakenly sought approval for, and obtained approval of, a £13,000 each-way bet. The operator then confirmed that £26,000 would be deducted from Mr Longley’s account, which he confirmed. The horse won, and £286,000 was credited before the bet was resettled at the lower stake.

The issues were whether the conversation created a contract for the larger bet; whether any such contract was avoided by unilateral or mutual mistake; whether the operator’s standard error clause permitted resettlement; and whether that clause was unfair under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

1. Construction and disposition. The claim was dismissed against all defendants. Objectively construed in context, the operator’s statement that £26,000 would be deducted was confirmation of the amount arising from the customer’s requested bet. It was not a counter-offer. The customer’s confirmation was not a revised offer, and the subsequent words that the bet was on referred to the bet originally requested, albeit erroneously recorded at the higher stake. No contract for a £13,000 each-way bet was formed.
2. Unilateral mistake. Alternatively, the court found that the customer knew that Paddy Power had not intended to offer or accept a bet at the larger stake. The stake was a fundamental contractual term. An apparent contract on the larger stake therefore could not be enforced by the customer. Constructive knowledge alone does not establish unilateral mistake. The reasoning in Digilandmall.com reflected the law of England and Wales: what a reasonable person would have known is an evidential route to deciding actual knowledge, including wilful blindness, rather than an independent basis for avoiding the contract.
3. Mutual mistake. The parties were not at cross-purposes. Paddy Power had never intended to make a counter-offer, and the customer understood that the trader was approving the stake he had requested. The alternative defence therefore added nothing.
4. Clause 16. On the hypothesis that a larger-stake contract existed, clause 16.9 applied. Human error occurred at the earlier stage of recording and approving the bet, and that error caused the incorrect award of winnings. The clause required repayment of winnings resulting from that error. The Braganza issue did not arise because it was unpleaded and its factual basis was not established.
5. Fairness and transparency. The LCCP did not mandate the form of the operator’s error rules, so section 73 did not exclude clause 16 from assessment. Transparency under section 68 is distinct from fairness under section 62, although broader openness may inform good faith. Clause 16 was suitably signposted and intelligible. It created an imbalance, but not a significant imbalance, and did not contravene good faith. It was therefore not unfair.