The New Lottery Company Limited & Anor v The Gambling Commission

The New Lottery Company Limited & Anor v The Gambling Commission

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant security for costs in favour of an interested party under CPR 3.1(2)(p) or inherent jurisdiction, as CPR 25.26 restricts such orders to defendants and the settled practice of the court does not permit extension to interested parties. Furthermore, the evidence shows the Claimants have access to substantial liquid assets within their corporate group, negating any reason to believe they will be unable to pay adverse costs orders.

Parties
Claimant: The New Lottery Company Limited; Claimant: Northern & Shell PLC; Defendant: The Gambling Commission; Interested Party: Allwyn Entertainment Limited; Interested Party: Allwyn International AG; Interested Party: Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Both applications for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction of Interested Parties, Corporate Group Asset Control
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Jurisdiction of Interested Parties Corporate Group Asset Control

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The New Lottery Company Limited

Claimant

Northern & Shell PLC

Claimant

The Gambling Commission

Defendant

Allwyn Entertainment Limited

Interested Party

Allwyn International AG

Interested Party

Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to award security for costs in favour of an interested party
  2. 2 Whether a parent company with limited assets may rely on its control over a wholly owned subsidiary with substantial assets to avoid a security for costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant security for costs in favour of an interested party under CPR 3.1(2)(p) or inherent jurisdiction, as CPR 25.26 restricts such orders to defendants and the settled practice of the court does not permit extension to interested parties. Furthermore, the evidence shows the Claimants have access to substantial liquid assets within their corporate group, negating any reason to believe they will be unable to pay adverse costs orders.

Court Disposition

Both applications for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • IP Application for security for costs dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • GC Application for security for costs dismissed as threshold condition not met