complied with order to reveal details of McCanns account without
Megan McCann suing bookie for nearly £1m in unpaid
A legal case from January 2017
which relates to Megan McCanns long-running attempt to sue Bet365 for
£1m appears to suggest co-operation between Britains biggest online
bookmaker and the leading money-transfer company, Skrill.
suing Bet365 over a £25,000 bet on four races in Britain and Ireland
which was placed and accepted via the firms website in June 2016. The
winnings due on the bet amount to just over £975,000 but Bet365 has
refused to pay out, or return the initial £25,000 stake, because it
claims that the stake was provided by a third party in
contravention of its Terms and Conditions (T&Cs).
hearing in the case is scheduled to take place at the high court in Belfast on
Friday, with a full hearing expected later in the year. However, the Guardian
has learned that in January 2017, Bet365 successfully applied for a
Norwich Pharmacol order against Skrill at the chancery division of
the high court in London, requiring Skrill to reveal details of McCanns
account with the firm.
Skrill, an e-wallet, has millions of
customers globally and is a popular way for punters to deposit money with
online gambling sites. What is
concerning, though, is that Skrill did not contest the application. As a
result, the witness statement by a Bet365 lawyer which supported the
application was not subjected to scrutiny and the application was
rubber-stamped in chambers.
All online businesses which hold or
transfer funds have extensive T&Cs to which customers must agree
usually via a tick-box before they can open an account. The Data
Protection Act also requires businesses to have a robust regime in place to
protect clients private data.
Skrill said in a statement on
Wednesday that we take our data protection obligations very seriously and
are satisfied weve met our obligations in this matter. The
statement continued: We were entitled to comply with the order. Under the
personal information to third parties in certain limited circumstances,
including in response to a subpoena, warrant, court order, or as
otherwise required to by law.
We took legal advice at the
time we were served with the order which affirmed our position. At the time we
were served the order we were prevented from disclosing the content of the
order to anyone else.
is certainly broad enough to cover their acquiescence with Bet365s
Bet365 is involved in a civil action with McCann and the
bookmaker applied for the order several months before the details of
McCanns winning bet became public, in July 2017. The fairness and legal
status of Bet365s T&Cs will be central to the proceedings when
McCanns case finally reaches a full hearing.