National Lottery player locked in court fight with Camelot as she claims she’s entitled to £1million

A woman convinced she won £1million in a National Lottery game has taken operator Camelot to the High Court – who instead claim she won just £10.

Joan Parker-Grennan says she was playing online with an instant win game ticket on August 25, 2015 when she was allegedly told she had won £1million after matching two numbers.

Mr Justice Jay, who led the case, was informed by Camelot lawyers that a “technical problem” revealed figures, highlighting a declared prize of £1million and that Parker-Grennan had in fact only won £10.

The court heard 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.

Camelot, operator of the National Lottery, argues that a “technical error” led to the £1million prize error

This would announce that the player won the prize “determined by these matching numbers”.

According to Camelot, “at the point” Parker Grennan bought her ticket, Parker Grennan had accidentally assigned her computer system a price of £10, but due to a “technical” problem that arose between 25th and 26th August 2015, it gave up it’s a miscommunication.

The “issue”, the court said, could result in some screens showing “different graphic animations”, resulting in Parker Grennan seeing two other matching numbers with a declared price of £1million alongside her £10.

With the case deadlocked, Parker Grennan is pleading for a summary judgment in her favor, believing she is “compulsorily” beating Camelot in a trial.

But Camelot’s legal team has denied those claims and is pleading for their case to be dismissed as there is a “real chance” they will win the case.

The case is being heard in London’s High Court (pictured: Royal Courts of Justice)

In a written argument, Barrister Philip Hinks, head of Camelot’s legal team, said: “There is at least a real prospect of a successful defense of Camelot [Parker-Grennan’s] claim in court.

‘It is inappropriate for [the] Claim for Summary Determination.’

However, representing Parker Grennan, Barrister James Couser argued that Camelot had “no real prospect of a successful defense of the claim” and that the “dispute between the parties [was] actually pretty narrow.

“The defendant says that the terms mean that the plaintiff is bound by the game’s intended outcome, even though the game was not programmed as the relevant clause of the contract required.’

If the matter were examined on the “true interpretation of the contract,” he argued, Parker-Grennan would be “entitled to a judgment.”

Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk