An online blackjack player has won a victory in the High Court today after gambling giant Betfred refused to pay out his £1.7m jackpot winnings.
Andrew Green won £1.7m in January 2018 while playing a blackjack game on his phone.
But the bookmaker refused to pay out, saying a software glitch meant that the game was not operating property.
Today High Court judge Justice Foster ruled in Green’s favour, according to reports, and said the company had no grounds for withholding the payment.
Green will now receive his £1.7m, plus interest, after a three-year battle.
In a statement, Green said the last three years had felt like “hell on earth,” adding: “But today I feel like the world has been lifted off my shoulders and I feel so incredibly happy and received – for me, my family and my legal team.
“The champagne can finally come off ice and be savoured.”
A Betfred spokesperson said: “Mr Green won the jackpot three times whilst playing a game provided by one of our third-party suppliers. The supplier reported a software problem to us and advised that we should withhold payment.
“However, we will abide by the court’s decision and not appeal. We would like to apologise to Mr Green for the delay in receiving his money.”
According to the BBC, Green said he had gone “absolutely crazy” after scooping the jackpot on the Frankie Dettori Magic Seven Blackjack game.
Following the win, Green extended his overdraft and spent more than £2,500 celebrating with friends and family.
But a few days later a Betfred director called him to say there had been a “software error” and that it was rejecting the claim.
Green then challenged the decision, and Betfred at one point offered him £60,000 “goodwill” on the grounds he agreed never to talk about it again, but he refused.
In April 2019 Green took his case to the High Court, aiming to sue Betfred and its parent company, Gibralter-based Petfre, for £2m, to include the interest he would have earned from the win.
Betfred argued that the software glitch issue was covered under the terms and conditions, but Justice Foster said the wording of the clauses was “inadequate” and “not transparent or fair and Betfred were not entitled to rely upon them”.