Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to Camelot's refusal to pay a £1 million prize, holding that on the true construction of the applicable contractual framework the appellant was entitled only to the £10 that Camelot's system recorded. The court treated three issues: (i) incorporation of online terms by click‑wrap and hyperlinks, (ii) potential unenforceability of terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the UTCCR), and (iii) the construction of the contractual rules governing the instant win game. It was unnecessary to decide the enforceability point because, construing the Game Procedures and the IWG Rules together, the declared outcome was £10. The court held that click‑wrap coupled with readily accessible hyperlinks and update notices was sufficient to incorporate Camelot's terms in the circumstances, and that the contested clauses did not offend the UTCCR.

The appellant, a registered player of the National Lottery, played an online Instant Win Game in August 2015. A software animation error produced on her screen an apparent (but not flashing) match suggesting a top prize of £1 million; Camelot's validated record of the Play showed a £10 win. The appellant sued, seeking summary judgment (or strike out of the defence) that she had won £1 million. The High Court (Jay J) found for Camelot and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the claim: claim for payment of a prize; application for summary judgment (alternatively strike out of defence).

Issues before the Court:

• Incorporation issue: whether Camelot's Interactive Account Terms, Rules for Interactive Instant Win Games (IWG Rules) and Game Procedures were incorporated into the contract formed online by a click‑wrap process and via hyperlinks/drop‑down menus.
• Enforceability issue: whether specific contractual clauses were unenforceable as unfair under the UTCCR (including Regs 5, 6, 7 and 8 and Schedule 2).
• Construction issue: whether, properly construed, the contractual rules entitled the appellant to £1 million or only £10.

Reasoning and decision: the court addressed the three issues in order but concluded that the construction point alone disposed of the appeal. The Game Procedures clearly required (i) matched numbers to turn white and flash in a green circle, (ii) that the Game was only complete when all numbers and prizes had been revealed, and (iii) that the player must select the "FINISH" button to complete the Game and see the official message of the amount won. The Game Procedures and the IWG Rules also made clear that one Prize only could be won per Play and that the outcome of a Play is pre‑determined by Camelot's system and validated against Camelot's official list of Winning Plays. The animation error affected display only and did not alter the pre‑determined prize tier recorded by Camelot. Even if incorporation and UTCCR questions were arguable, they were unnecessary to decide because construction showed the appellant had won £10. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and endorsed the High Court's reasoning, while recognising wider issues about online presentation of standard terms and suggesting that further evidence‑based review might be appropriate.

Appeal dismissed. The Court held that on the true construction of the Game Procedures and IWG Rules (which were properly incorporated by the click‑wrap/update procedure in the circumstances), the appellant’s Play produced a £10 win as recorded on Camelot’s validated list; the animation error affected only the display. It was therefore unnecessary to decide contested UTCCR points, though the court concluded the contested clauses would not be unfair in the facts and drafting before it.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Mr Justice Jay ([2023] EWHC 800 (KB)). Permission to appeal was granted by the trial judge; appeal disposed of by the Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 185).