Blandy & Blandy Solicitors

Making an Appointment and Visiting our Offices >>

Insights // 05 July 2021

Why You Shouldn’t Gamble with Terms and Conditions: Green v Betfred

Debbie Brett and Emma Ford, in our Corporate & Commercial team, look at a recent high profile case that provides a reminder of the importance of good terms and conditions.

The importance of clear, enforceable and suitably drafted terms and conditions is once again highlighted in the recent High Court summary judgement of Andrew Green v Petre (Gibraltar) Ltd (t/a Betfred).

Gambling operators were alerted to the importance of the terms and conditions that are conveyed to their customers, following the lengthy legal proceedings brought against Betfred by Andrew Green, when he found himself unable to withdraw his £1,722,923.54 prize fund.

Mr Green won the substantial jackpot sum via an online casino hosted by Betfred. When attempting to redeem his prize, Betfred informed him that a software defect had affected the probability of a player winning higher sums of money, therefore they would not pay Mr Green his winnings.

Mr Green took legal action against Betfred in January 2018, for a breach of their terms and conditions. These stated that that players could withdraw funds from their account at any time once payments had been confirmed to the player. Mr Green did not anticipate that three challenging years of pursuing his claim would ensue, before he would receive the long awaited jackpot sum from Betfred, with an additional £600,000 in interest.

Judgement

Mrs Justice Foster ruled in Mr Green’s favour, drawing on three main aspects of the terms and conditions, specifically the exclusion clauses:

1. Meaning

Mrs Justice Foster found that the wording of the exclusion clauses did not exclude liability to pay out winnings in the event of a technical ‘glitch’. Firstly, the concept of bets being void in the event of an error was not communicated. Further, the use of the word ‘malfunction’ was too vague, with no clear definition given in the context of the gambling platform. Mrs Justice Foster stated that “the Game functioned apparently flawlessly, but produced a set of odds that were not what one party intended.” Having not defined the extent of ‘malfunction’, Betfred could not rely on this clause in the current circumstances.

2. Incorporation

It was found that the exclusion clauses upon which Betfred sought to rely, were not sufficiently incorporated into their contract with Mr Green. Mrs Justice Foster highlighted inadequate signposting to significant exclusion clauses and a lack of clarity of meaning and consequence of terms. In addition, the presentation of terms was not conducive to the customer’s understanding, with tightly packed lower-case text, numerous paragraphs of capital letters and particularly important clauses difficult to distinguish. It was deemed unreasonable to expect a player to scroll through extensive materials in an effort to find the key terms.

3. Enforceability

Mrs Justice Fowler found that clauses were not transparent or fair, despite Mr Green being an experienced player. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a term that is unfair will not be enforceable against the consumer.

Key points to consider

Despite concerning a gambling operator, this case brings to light important considerations for all businesses:

1. Ensure that terms and conditions are drafted clearly and in a way that is easy for customers to understand. This is particularly important for onerous terms such as exclusions of liability;

2. Ensure that key terms are adequately defined so that customers are aware of the scope of meaning that can be drawn from the language;

3. Consider how the terms and conditions are communicated to customers. Terms that are significant should be clearly sign posted and presented in a format that is accessible and not likely to be overlooked, i.e. avoid lengthy and partly irrelevant stretches of text or clauses that are tightly packed together; and

4. Assess your terms and conditions from the point of view of the customer/end user. Do they fulfil the function that they set out to serve?

Our Corporate & Commercial team would be pleased to provide further information.

For further information or legal advice, please contact law@blandy.co.uk or call 0118 951 6800. 

This article is intended for the use of clients and other interested parties. The information contained in it is believed to be correct at the date of publication, but it is necessarily of a brief and general nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific professional advice.

Debbie Brett

Debbie Brett

Partner, Commercial & Regulatory Law

Read Bio

Emma Ford

Emma Ford

Trainee Solicitor

Read Bio

News & Insights

Report on How Police Respond to Violence Against Women and Girls Published
Elizabeth Owen

Elizabeth Owen

Solicitor, Family Law

What is Spousal Maintenance and How is it Calculated?
Rebecca Ledgerwood

Rebecca Ledgerwood

Solicitor, Family Law

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - Exemption for Residential Extensions
Kayleigh Chapman

Kayleigh Chapman

Solicitor, Planning & Environmental Law

More Stringent Obligations on the Horizon for Landlords Relating to Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) for Non-Domestic Rented Property
Gemma Smith

Gemma Smith

Associate Solicitor, Commercial Property Law

Conditions Restricting Permitted Development Rights
Kayleigh Chapman

Kayleigh Chapman

Solicitor, Planning & Environmental Law

Financial Settlement On Divorce - What Can I Do to Manage My Legal Fees?
Claire Dyer

Claire Dyer

Partner, Family Law

Why It Is Important to Make or Review Your Will When Moving Home
Dani McGurk

Dani McGurk

Solicitor, Wills, Probate, Tax & Trusts & Court of Protection

Considerations for Charities in England and Wales as COVID-19 Restrictions Are Lifted
Nick Burrows

Nick Burrows

Chairman & Partner, Charity & Commercial Law

Blandy & Blandy Advises on The Cold Chain Federation’s Acquisition of Commercial Transport Publishing
David Lamont

David Lamont

Marketing Manager

View More