News Feed

In a recent case heard by Mr Justice Richie in the High Court (Durber v PPB Entertainment LTD ([2025] EWHC 498 (KB)) Corrine Durber, a gardener from Gloucestershire, successfully brought a claim against Paddy Power after she hit a jackpot of over £1m, but Paddy Power attempted to credit her account with just £20,265.14.

On hitting the “Monster Jackpot”, Ms Durber was told by Paddy Power that there was a “mapping error”, that her £1m claim would be denied, and to refer to Paddy Power’s Terms and Conditions (T&Cs).

Naturally, Ms Durber felt otherwise. She argued that the rules that popped up on screen (“spin the jackpot wheel to determine which of the offered jackpot tiers will be won”) before playing were the terms that should have been binding.

Paddy Power’s proposed ‘get-out-of-jail’ clauses in their T&Cs read as follows:

“In the event of a discrepancy between the results displayed on your computer and a Game’s records on our server, our records shall be regarded as definitive.”

“In the event of systems or communications errors relating to the generation of any result, bet settlement or any other element of a Game, we will not be liable to you as a result of any such errors and we reserve the right to void all related bets and plays on the Game in question.”

Ms Durber, on the other hand, argued that the rules as shown on screen were terms in themselves, which took priority over the T&Cs. Mr Justice Ritchie looked at the relationship between the rules and Paddy Power’s wider T&Cs and noted that there was a clear conflict between the two, stating that if you were in a casino a consumer would “expect the house to pay out on the roulette wheel if they bet on number 13 and the ball lands on number 13”.

Mr Justice Ritchie found two other interesting faults in Paddy Power’s position:

• Where terms are considered particularly onerous and/or unusual, Paddy Power’s ability to rely on them could be diminished. In the circumstances, Mr Justice Ritchie found that Paddy Power's broad ability to get out of paying a jackpot met such criteria. As Lord Denning famously commented “some clauses…. need to be printed in red ink…. with a red hand pointing to it”.
• While the terms above accounted for ‘systems errors’ and ‘communications errors’, they did not account for ‘human error’. As such, any attempts by Paddy Power to rely on ‘human error’ in the course of the defence were bound to fail. Interestingly, the term ‘human mistakes’ now appears in the current T&Cs…

This case highlights the importance of having well-drafted, bespoke T&Cs in place, and how the importance increases in line with the risk profile of your business. Not all businesses are exposed to losing millions to a “Monster Jackpot”, but each business carries with it its own inherent risks which can at least be mitigated by robust terms.

If your business could benefit from a new set of T&Cs, or an update to your existing T&Cs, our specialist Commercial Lawyers at Leathes Prior Solicitors would be pleased to assist you with this. You can contact us by email at info@leathesprior.co.uk, or by telephone on 01603 610911.