Legal expert sounds warning to gambling industry following Paddy Power High Court ruling

Ellis Jones Solicitors

A legal expert has opined that gambling operators could be compelled to revisit their terms and conditions following the British High Court ruling against Paddy Power. 

Betting disputes expert Paul Kanolik, a partner and solicitor at Ellis Jones Solicitors, has intimated the case shows that companies cannot rely on their terms and conditions to avoid such payouts. Essentially, they could be forced to take action to negate the risk.

Check out the best UK online casinos to claim offers worth up to £9,500 and over 3,500 free spins!

Flutter Entertainment-owned Paddy Power was ordered to pay out over £1m after legal action was brought by a customer who was told she had won the largest jackpot but was only awarded £20,625. 

Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire in southwest England, was playing an online slot game when she landed the life-changing win, or so it appeared. 

Durber was playing a hybrid fruit machine and wheel of fortune-style game, called The Wild Hatter, when the jackpot reel returned a message stating she had won the ‘Monster Jackpot’ of £1,097,132.71.  

The gambler was ecstatic, but later she was only awarded £20,265.14 with the company informing her she had actually won the ‘Daily Jackpot’, a much-reduced sum.

The explanation given was that a system malfunction with the online software had caused the wrong message to be shown on screen. As expected, she refused to accept this, prompting the legal action.

“On occasion, gambling operators and their customers may experience software glitches, which can result in conflicts between the graphical display and the software’s intended result", said Kanolik.

“The Judgment in Durber v Paddy Power shows that gambling operators may not necessarily be able to avoid paying out the winnings portrayed on-screen in those kinds of erroneous circumstances by relying on their terms and conditions. This was also the position in the 2021 case of Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited (trading as Betfred).”

The legal professional continued, “It is a stark reminder for those operating in the gambling industry that their terms and conditions need to be fair and that any onerous provisions need to be sufficiently brought to the attention of their customers. 

“Gambling operators may wish to revisit their terms and conditions, and the way in which they are presenting those to customers, to minimise the risk of being on the receiving end of other similar judgments in the future.” 

Kanolik went on to state that other similar cases are likely to follow Durber v Paddy Power, with the precedent of current case law encouraging claimants.

At the High Court in London on Wednesday,  Mr Justice Ritchie returned a summary judgement, meaning a victory was awarded to Mrs Durber without the need for a trial.

In the 62-page ruling, he stressed the importance of “what you see is what you get” as a central component of such online slot games.

“Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct,” the Judge added.

Flutter commented, “We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment.”

Mrs Durber was elated with her legal victory and has vowed to never place another bet with the bookie: “As you can imagine, I’m so relieved and happy that the judge has confirmed I fairly and squarely won £1m from Paddy Power.

“But why couldn’t Paddy Power pay up straight away instead of putting me through this legal torment? I will never bet with them ever again.”