A WOMAN is suing the National Lottery because she’s convinced she scooped a £1million jackpot – but they’re saying she won just £10.
Joan Parker-Grennan is fighting Camelot as she says the National Lottery operator is “bound” to pay her a £1m prize.
1
But Camelot argues it is only liable to pay her £10.
A judge has been overseeing the latest stage of the dispute a London High Court.
Mr Justice Jay today heard that Parker-Grennan had played online after buying an Instant Win Game ticket on August 25, 2015.
Lawyers told him that a “technical issue” saw numbers, with a designated prize of £1m, highlighted.
They explained that the premise of the game was that if a number in the “your numbers” section of the screen matched one in the winning numbers section, the two matching numbers would turn white, indicating that the player had won the prize “designated by those matching numbers”.
Camelot says that “at the point” when Parker-Grennan bought her ticket, its computer system predetermined her prize to be £10.
But the judge was told that between August 25 and 26, 2015, there had been a “technical issue” which could result in “different graphical animations” being displayed on some players’ screens.
Two numbers with a designated prize of £10 were highlighted on Parker-Grennan’s screen with a message saying: “Congratulations, you have won £10.”
Most read in Money
But the judge heard that two other matching numbers – with a designated prize of £1m – also appeared as a result of the technical issue.
Parker-Grennan says there should be summary judgment in her favour because Camelot cannot win at a trial.
Lawyers representing the operator say there is a “real prospect” of Camelot winning at a trial, and Parker-Grennan’s application should be dismissed.
Barrister Philip Hinks, leading Camelot’s legal team, argued that the operator was only liable to pay the “outcome of the ticket as predetermined” by the operator’s computer system.
He said that was £10, not £1m.
In a written argument, Mr Hinks said: “There is, at the lowest, a real prospect of Camelot successfully defending (Parker-Grennan’s) claim at trial.
“It is inappropriate for (the) claim to be determined summarily.”
He said there was a “substantial” factual dispute – concerning what outcome had been predetermined by Camelot’s computer system – between Parker-Grennan and Camelot.
He said a judge could not resolve this summarily.
Barrister James Couser, representing Parker-Grennan, said there was “no real prospect of the claim being successfully defended”.
He said: “The dispute between the parties is actually quite a narrow one.
“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”, Parker-Grennan was “entitled to judgment”.
