Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

The appellant was bound by Camelot’s terms and conditions, which were properly incorporated via click-wrap and hyperlinks. The Game Procedures and IWG Rules made clear that only one prize could be won per play, and the outcome was determined by Camelot’s computer system. The appellant won £10, not £1 million. The relevant terms were not unfair or unenforceable under the UTCCR.

Parties
Claimant and Appellant: Joan Parker-Grennan; Defendant and Respondent: Camelot UK Lotteries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Terms, Unfair Contract Terms, Online Contracts, Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contract
Contract Law Consumer Protection Incorporation of Terms Unfair Contract Terms Online Contracts Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Parker-Grennan

Claimant and Appellant

Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were Camelot’s terms incorporated in the contract?
  2. 2 Were certain terms unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?
  3. 3 Did the appellant win £1 million or only £10 as a matter of contract construction?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was bound by Camelot’s terms and conditions, which were properly incorporated via click-wrap and hyperlinks. The Game Procedures and IWG Rules made clear that only one prize could be won per play, and the outcome was determined by Camelot’s computer system. The appellant won £10, not £1 million. The relevant terms were not unfair or unenforceable under the UTCCR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.