Gardener wins High Court case over £1 million Paddy Power payout
A gardener who was told she had won more than £1 million from an online Paddy Power game but was only paid around £20,000 has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 which was described as a combination of a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune style game with two parts.
After moving to the second part and spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the 'Monster Jackpot', which was stated as £1,097,132.71 on the day she played.
However, she was only paid £20,265.14 and told she had won the smaller 'Daily Jackpot', with the difference attributed to an error with the game's display as it had been mal-programmed and pointed to the wrong prize.
Mrs Durber sued PPB Entertainment Limited, which trades as Paddy Power and Betfair, for breach of contract and for the rest of her winnings, based on what she was shown on screen.
And in a judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Ritchie granted summary judgment in her favour, meaning she won her case without a trial.
PPB had said that the outcome was determined by a random number generator, which had said she had only won the daily jackpot, but an error affected the animations of the game and showed her the wrong result.
Mr Justice Ritchie said that the idea of 'what you see is what you get' was 'central' to the game.
He continued in a 62-page ruling: 'Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct.
'The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette.
'They expect the house to pay out on the roulette wheel if they bet on number 13 and the ball lands on number 13.'
The judge found that the result from the random number generator was different from the result on screen due to human error in mapping the software, which had affected 14 plays over 48 days.
He also said: 'When a trader puts all the risk on a consumer for its own recklessness, negligence, errors, inadequate digital services and inadequate testing, that appears onerous to me.'
Mrs Durber said after the decision: 'As you can imagine, I'm so relieved and happy that the judge has confirmed I fairly and squarely won £1 million from Paddy Power.
'But why couldn't Paddy Power pay-up straight away instead of putting me through this legal torment?
'I will never bet with them ever again, and I advise others to be very careful too.'
She added that Paddy Power had 'tried their very best to deny me my rightful winnings'.
'What's the point in betting if betting companies like Paddy Power won't pay-up when someone wins a big jackpot?'
Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Flutter UKI, which owns Paddy Power, said: 'Every week tens of thousands of customers win with Paddy Power, including an individual who received a £5.7 million jackpot just one year ago.
'We always strive to provide the best customer experience possible and pride ourselves on fairness.
'We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
BBC confirms corporation will not appeal Gerry Adams libel ruling after it adds update to online article
It comes after the broadcaster updated an online article at the heart of the controversy, urging readers to be aware of the outcome of the case which found that the former Sinn Fein leader had been defamed. Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a Spotlight episode which aired in 2016 and the accompanying online article based on the programme. In a high-profile case, a jury concluded the content defamed Mr Adams (76) by featuring an anonymous source who alleged he sanctioned the 2006 murder of British agent Denis Donaldson who was also a high-ranking Sinn Fein official. This evening the BBC said: 'We have given careful consideration to the jury's decision. 'We will not be appealing its verdict, bringing this matter to a conclusion. We remain committed to public interest journalism and to serving all BBC audiences.' The verdict was delivered in the High Court in Dublin last month along with the decision to award the successful claimant €100,000 (£84,000). Jurors determined that the allegation — which Mr Adams has always denied — in the programme and online story was damaging to Mr Adams' reputation. The jury concluded that the BBC did not act in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way. The corporation was then ordered to pay Mr Adams' legal costs. The combined bill for both parties is estimated to be between €3-5m (£2.5-4.2m), according to sources with knowledge of the case. Speaking tonight, Mr Adams said the decision should be accompanied with 'a substantial reform' of the BBC's internal journalistic processes along with an acknowledgement that 'it cannot continue to be a voice for the British state in Ireland'. 'It must also become more accountable to the public,' he continued in a statement. 'There is an onus on the BBC to ensure that in the future its ethics and journalism reflect the principles and values of a public broadcast service. 'As I have already said the damages will be donated to good causes.' The offending online article remains on the BBC News website, however an update has been added. The update, alongside a link to reporting of the defamation case, states: 'In 2017 Gerry Adams commenced defamation proceedings in the Republic of Ireland against the BBC in respect of the article below and the BBC programme 'Spy in the IRA' upon which the article is based. 'In May 2025 a jury in the High Court in Dublin, Ireland, found in favour of Mr Adams and awarded him €100,000 (£84,000) in damages. 'A link to the BBC's reporting of the outcome of Gerry Adams' libel case, which should be read in conjunction with this update, is here.' It comes after the Taoiseach promised that defamation laws in the Republic will be changed as quickly as the Irish Government can achieve it. Earlier this week Micheal Martin praised the BBC reporter at the centre of the case, Jennifer O'Leary, as 'first-class'. 'I think the defamation laws need to be changed — we're going to change them,' he said. The Taoiseach vowed that the Government in Dublin would pass the legislation 'as quickly as we can' adding: 'I think we do need to get it through to create a balanced environment for commentary and for investigative journalism'. BBC NI director Adam Smyth previously warned of 'profound' implications of libel action as he expressed disappointment over the outcome. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could — and they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression,' he said after the verdict. Meanwhile Ms O'Leary insisted she had entered the witness box with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect' as she thanked them for trusting her. The BBC's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award and initially said it was taking time to consider an appeal.
Belfast Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
BBC confirms corporation will not appeal Gerry Adams libel ruling
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, in which he denies any involvement. Last month, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs. In a statement on Friday evening, the BBC said: "We have given careful consideration to the jury's decision. "We will not be appealing its verdict, bringing this matter to a conclusion. We remain committed to public interest journalism and to serving all BBC audiences."
Daily Mirror
17 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Michelle Mone told it would be 'disappointing' if PPE firm made little profit
The Department for Health and Social Care is suing PPE Medpro for £130m after Baroness Mone acted as an introducer, saying the gowns were not sterile and unfit for use - the company denies the claims Conservative peer Baroness Michelle Mone was told by a boss of a PPE firm that it would be disappointing if the company made little or no profit, the High Court heard. Her husband Doug Barrowman was at the court yesterday for the second day of a £130million trial over PPE Medpro, a company he backed. The Department of Health and Social Care is seeking the return of £122m it spent on surgical gowns bought during the pandemic along with £8.6m in storage and transportation costs. The High Court heard that the gowns were not sterile and unusable in the NHS when delivered in 2020. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed it has been "singled out for unfair treatment". The company was backed by a consortium led by Mr Barrowman and the initial contact with the government's PPE team came from Baroness Mone. Written submissions in the case state that Baroness Mone was told by firm boss Anthony Page that it would be "extremely disappointing" if it made little or no profit. A few days before the contract was signed for 25 million gowns, fewer than the 50 million originally proposed, Mr Page wrote to her, saying: "Tomorrow we will submit our best price. As I said our margin will be tiny or possibly nothing at all as we have bought all the production capacity upfront. We really need to achieve a positive outcome to this extremely disappointing situation." Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty." Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract - equating to one in a million being unusable. 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing, and he added: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. Mr Stanley said that the gowns were 'unusable in the NHS or any other setting', adding: 'Without the relevant assurances of conformity that the gowns met sterility requirements, the potential impact on safety was such that they could seriously harm or kill patients and so could not be released for use.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." Bra tycoon Baroness Mone, 53, and Isle of Manbased entrepreneur Mr Barrowman, 60, who wed in 2020, both deny wrongdoing. They are facing a separate National Crime Agency investigation into PPE Medpro. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. The trial is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected at a later date.
