- High Court allows summary judgment in £4m scratchcard case (Goodram v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Were the terms incorporated?
- Was there an express or implied term?
- Was Camelot's decision unreasonable?
- Was Camelot estopped from rejecting the claimants' claim to the £4 million prize by reason of the payment of the £10 prize?
- The effect of the payment of £50 by the claimants' lawyers for the scratchcards in July 2020
- Case details
Commercial analysis: The Master granted the defendant Camelot summary judgment. The case arose where the claimants were seeking to enforce a lottery scratchcard win of £4m. The Master held that Camelot had good grounds for refusing to pay (as they were suspicious that the 'winners' had bought the scratch cards using unauthorised means). In separate criminal proceedings, the claimants were jailed for fraud. The decision in the civil case is a common sense one, making clear that Camelot has discretion to refuse to award prizes if it has reasonable grounds to do so, and does not act capriciously. In addition, it provides a useful illustration of the principles of estoppel as well as the rules on incorporating terms into contracts with consumers. Written by Geraint Lloyd-Taylor, partner and Helen Hart, senior practice development lawyer, Lewis Silkin LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial