Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

A contract made online must be construed as a whole. A screen instruction does not override incorporated game procedures which define a valid winning play, limit a player to one prize, and prescribe how the result is confirmed. An animation error which does not affect the predetermined and displayed final outcome cannot create an additional prize entitlement.

In additional reasoning, click-wrap acceptance may incorporate readily accessible standard terms if the consumer has a sufficient opportunity to read them. The question is fact-sensitive; compulsory scrolling is not indispensable. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the consumer-favouring construction rule applies to ambiguity within a term. It does not rewrite an agreed priority clause or resolve silence as an inconsistency.

The claimant held an online National Lottery account and played an interactive instant-win game. A software error in the game animation displayed two matching number 1s, although neither flashed. The game’s random-number system had predetermined a £10 prize, which was confirmed after she selected “FINISH”. She claimed £1 million.

Jay J gave judgment for Camelot in the King’s Bench Division: [2023] EWHC 800 (KB). The claimant appealed. The issues were whether the game terms had been incorporated, whether particular terms were unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and whether the contract entitled her to £1 million or £10.

Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice Andrews, with whom Lord Justice William Davis and Lord Justice Green agreed, held that the claimant won £10 only. The construction issue was dispositive. Although that made it unnecessary to determine incorporation and enforceability, the court addressed them because of the wider arguments advanced.

1. The contract could not be construed by isolating the screen statement that matching a winning number with one of the player’s numbers would win a prize. The incorporated Game Procedures explained the instructions. A matching number had to turn white and flash, the final message had to state the amount won, and the player had to select “FINISH” to complete the game.

2. The Game Procedures also stated that only one prize could be won per play. The applicable rules made the predetermined computer result and Camelot’s official list of winning plays decisive. The software fault affected only the animation. It did not affect the random-number allocation of the £10 prize. The screen’s final result and the computer record were consistent.

3. On incorporation, the court agreed that the relevant terms were neither onerous nor unusual. Camelot had given the claimant a sufficient opportunity to read the updated terms through hyperlinks and drop-down menus before accepting them. Click-wrap acceptance is not invariably sufficient, but compulsory scrolling through terms is not required. The adequacy of notice depends on the circumstances, including accessibility and the time available to read the terms.

4. On enforceability, Regulation 7(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 concerns ambiguity in an individual written term. It does not reorder contractual provisions or disapply an unambiguous hierarchy clause. The relevant terms were not unfair on the facts; in any event, Camelot did not need to rely on its final-and-binding dispute clause to establish the contractual result.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the claimant’s appeal: [2024] EWCA Civ 185.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division — Jay J found for Camelot on the construction, incorporation and enforceability issues: [2023] EWHC 800 (KB). Jay J granted permission to appeal.