Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

Contractual terms for online games may be incorporated through hyperlinks and drop-down menus where the supplier takes reasonably sufficient steps to make them available. A term requires enhanced notice only if it is onerous or unusual, assessed flexibly in the circumstances. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, fairness is assessed clause by clause. A validation clause giving the supplier a final decision subject to reasonableness may be enforceable where it is clearly expressed and does not involve unfair dealing. In an instant-win game, the contractual outcome is determined by the applicable game procedures and the supplier’s official record of the predetermined winning play. A misleading animation does not itself create an additional prize where the completed game and official record establish a different result.

The claimant played an online National Lottery interactive instant-win game operated by the defendant. The game displayed a matching number which appeared to indicate a £1 million prize, but the completed game reported £10. The defendant’s evidence was that the play had been predetermined as a £10 win and that a coding error affected the animations.

The claimant sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24, alternatively strike-out under CPR Part 3.4, arguing that the relevant game instruction was incorporated, that other terms were not incorporated or were unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and that the display established a £1 million entitlement. The court considered incorporation, enforceability and construction.

1. Application dismissed. The defendant’s evidence concerning the computer system was accepted for the application. The claimant had not established an entitlement to the additional prize.
2. The Account Terms, IWG Rules and Game Procedures were capable of incorporation through hyperlinks and drop-down menus. The relevant game instruction had contractual effect, but it was only an abbreviated explanation and did not define the parties’ entire relationship. The contractual hierarchy gave the Game Procedures priority.
3. The enhanced-notice principle is expressed as whether a term is onerous or unusual. The test is flexible and depends on the circumstances. The provisions explaining how the game worked, requiring completion, limiting a play to one prize and identifying the official winning-play record were neither onerous nor unusual.
4. The court assessed the relevant clauses individually under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The clauses essential to the defendant’s case were clearly drafted and accessible. Clause 6.2(d), linking entitlement to the official list of winning plays, did not create a significant imbalance when read with the evidence that the outcome was randomly predetermined before the animations were selected.
5. Clause 12.1 created a significant imbalance because it made the defendant’s decision final and binding subject to a demanding reasonableness standard. It nevertheless satisfied good faith requirements: it was clear and transparent, the defendant had a legitimate validation function, and the court’s jurisdiction remained available. The clause was therefore enforceable.
6. On construction, the Game Procedures had to be read as a whole. They indicated a win through the flashing matching numbers and the final message, required the player to press FINISH, and provided that only one prize could be won. The screenshot was not the completed outcome. The official record identified the play as a £10 winning play, and the computer-generated result was consistent with the contractual scheme.
7. The wording on the game screen could not override the earlier provisions or produce a contrary result. The defendant therefore had only one reasonable decision: the claimant had not won £1 million. The claim was to be dismissed unless discontinued after the claimant decided whether to maintain her position on expert evidence.