Camelot in Court Over Jackpot Payout

Outgoing UK National Lottery operator Camelot is facing a fight in the High Court in London after a woman claims they owe her £1 million in winnings.

Camelot insist Joan Parker-Grennan had actually won £10 and that their machine was playing up the day it told her she was entitled to £1 million.

But Mrs Parker-Grennan is having none of it. She is suing the company because the ticket she bought had alluded to her scooping the big prize. As a result Camelot were ‘bound’ over to pay her the sum, she said.

Camelot’s lawyers explained the premise of the game to the court, saying that if two winning numbers in the “your numbers” section of the screen matched one in the winning numbers section, then those matching numbers were designed to turn white, showing the player had won a prize.

The lawyers said the ticket for the plaintiff showed two numbers turning white and, instantly, a message informing her that she had won £10. This was in line with what the computer had already predetermined. However, a technical issue Camelot had at the time Mrs Parker-Grennan bought her ticket between August 25 and 26, 2015, also flashed up two other winning numbers – this time for the £1 million prize.

Camelot’s barrister Philip Hinks, head of the former operator’s legal team, insist that the company is only liable to pay for the pre-determined amount decided by the machine. And that this was £10, and not £1 million.

Mrs Parker-Grennan doesn’t want the case to go ahead because she believes it would be a waste of time for Camelot and that the decision should be made in her favour at a summary trial.

To the contrary, and as expected, Camelot’s lawyers say that they believe the company has a very good chance of winning.

The lawyers insisted there was a “substantial” factual dispute – concerning what outcome had been predetermined by Camelot’s computer system – between Mrs Parker-Grennan and Camelot, which a judge could not resolve summarily.

But Mrs Parker-Grennan’s lawyer hit back: “The defendant says that the terms mean that the claimant is bound by what it intended the outcome of the game to have been, despite the fact that was not what the game was programmed to do accorded with what the relevant contractual term said it could do.”

He said that on the “true construction of the contract”, his client should win the case and receive the £1 million that the screen told her she had won.