James Robert Longley v PPB Entertainment Limited & Ors

James Robert Longley v PPB Entertainment Limited & Ors

No contract was formed for a £13,000 each way bet; the operator's reference to £26,000 was not a counter-offer but confirmation of the amount to be debited for the bet originally requested (£1,300 each way). Even if a contract for £13,000 each way was formed, Mr Longley had actual knowledge of the mistake, so the contract would be void for unilateral mistake. Clause 16 of the defendant's terms and conditions was not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and would have entitled the defendant to correct the error.

Parties
Claimant: James Robert Longley; Defendant: PPB Entertainment Limited; Defendant: PPB Counterparty Services Limited; Defendant: PPB Games Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unilateral Mistake, Mutual Mistake, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Gambling Contracts, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Contract Law Consumer Protection Unilateral Mistake Mutual Mistake Interpretation of Contract Terms Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Gambling Contracts Consumer Rights Act 2015

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Robert Longley

Claimant

PPB Entertainment Limited

Defendant

PPB Counterparty Services Limited

Defendant

PPB Games Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was formed for a £13,000 each way bet
  2. 2 Whether unilateral or mutual mistake vitiated any such contract
  3. 3 Whether Clause 16 of the defendant's terms and conditions was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Ratio Decidendi

No contract was formed for a £13,000 each way bet; the operator's reference to £26,000 was not a counter-offer but confirmation of the amount to be debited for the bet originally requested (£1,300 each way). Even if a contract for £13,000 each way was formed, Mr Longley had actual knowledge of the mistake, so the contract would be void for unilateral mistake. Clause 16 of the defendant's terms and conditions was not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and would have entitled the defendant to correct the error.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against all defendants.