A Gloucestershire gardener won £1.09 million on a Paddy Power game but received just £20,265; the High Court ordered the bookmaker to pay the remaining £1.07 million

A Gloucestershire gardener was told she had won more than £1 million on an online gambling game, only to receive a fraction of the displayed jackpot. Corrine Durber challenged Paddy Power’s decision to pay her just £20,265.14 after the company blamed a technical error. In March 2025, the High Court ruled in her favour, ordering the bookmaker to pay a further £1,076,867.57. The dispute began with a spin on an iPad in October 2020 and became a legal battle over whether a gambling company could refuse a prize shown on its own screen. The ruling raised important questions about digital game design, contractual terms and consumer protection. Here is how the jackpot appeared, why Paddy Power disputed it and what the judge decided.How the Wild Hatter game showed Corrine Durber a £1.1 million jackpot in 2020The dispute began on 18 October 2020, when Corrine Durber played the Wild Hatter game on her iPad through Paddy Power. According to The Guardian, the game combined the mechanics of a fruit machine with a wheel-of-fortune-style jackpot round. After progressing to the second stage and spinning the wheel, Durber’s screen indicated that she had won the “Monster Jackpot”, valued at £1,097,132.71.The apparent win looked like a life-changing result. Instead of receiving the full amount, Durber was paid a much smaller sum, setting off a legal fight that lasted more than four years before the High Court delivered its judgment in March 2025.Why Paddy Power paid £20,265.14 and blamed a software error for the jackpotPaddy Power paid Durber £20,265.14, saying she had won the smaller “Daily Jackpot” rather than the Monster Jackpot. The company argued that the game’s software had displayed the wrong result. The random number generator indicated that Durber had won the smaller prize, but an error in mapping the software caused the animation to show a different outcome.The distinction mattered because the amount displayed on the screen was more than £1 million higher than the sum she received. The BBC reported that the software-mapping error had affected 14 plays over a period of 48 days. Paddy Power maintained that the displayed jackpot did not reflect the result generated by the game’s underlying system.Durber challenged the decision rather than accepting the smaller payment. Her case centred on whether the company could rely on a technical fault to avoid paying a prize that its own game had presented as a win. The disagreement ultimately became a question of contract law: what was the customer entitled to expect when the game showed a specific jackpot?The High Court ordered Paddy Power to pay Corrine Durber £1,076,867.57Durber brought a claim against PPB Entertainment Limited, which operates Paddy Power, seeking the outstanding winnings on the basis that the displayed result formed part of the agreement between the player and the gambling company. On 5 March 2025, Mr Justice Ritchie granted judgment in her favour, ordering the company to pay £1,076,867.57.The amount represented the difference between the displayed jackpot of £1,097,132.71 and the £20,265.14 already paid. The judgment found that the discrepancy arose from human error in mapping the software, which had caused the animation to show the wrong result.The decision was significant because it rejected the idea that the company could simply disregard what the customer had seen on screen. It did not establish that every technical error automatically entitles a player to a displayed prize. Instead, the outcome depended on the particular game, its presentation and the contractual terms in the case.Justice Ritchie said ‘what you see is what you get’ was central to the gameIn his 62-page ruling, Justice Ritchie emphasised that players would reasonably expect the information displayed by a game to be accurate. He compared the situation with playing roulette in a physical casino. A customer who bets on number 13 expects the house to pay if the ball lands on that number. Similarly, a player using a digital game should be able to expect its displayed result to correspond with the outcome presented to them.The comparison helped explain why the software error did not automatically settle the question in Paddy Power’s favour. The company had relied on the random number generator, but the customer had been shown a different result by the game itself. The case therefore highlighted the importance of clear terms, accurate displays and adequate software testing in online gambling. It also demonstrated that technical explanations must be considered alongside the contractual expectations created by a product’s design.Corrine Durber celebrated her High Court victory as Paddy Power reviewed the judgmentFollowing the ruling, Durber said she was relieved and happy that the judge had confirmed she had won the jackpot fairly. She questioned why Paddy Power had not paid her immediately rather than putting her through a prolonged legal dispute. The case had taken years to resolve, and the difference between the amount displayed and the sum initially paid had left her fighting for the balance through the courts.The Guardian reported that Durber said she would never bet with Paddy Power again and advised others to be careful. The company expressed regret over the case and said it was reviewing the judgment. It also highlighted its wider record of paying customers’ winnings.The ruling established that the circumstances of an online game’s display can carry significant weight when a court assesses a customer’s contractual rights. For players, it underlined the importance of keeping records of disputed results. For operators, it offered a warning that software faults and the terms governing a game must be assessed carefully when a displayed outcome conflicts with the result generated behind the scenes.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.