Ladbrokes is withholding a six-figure payout on a winning bet placed by a stable hand last year due to an ongoing investigation by the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB).
According to the Racing Post, a €30 each-way double on Rocky’s Diamond in a maiden hurdle at Limerick and Diamond Nora in a mares’ maiden hurdle at Ballinrobe was placed on April 19, 2024, by Dylan Phelan, a stable hand who works for Declan Queally, the Waterford-based trainer of both horses.
When the wager was placed, the prices for the horses were 80-1 and 125-1. Both achieved victories at 22-1 and 16-1 starting prices, meaning Phelan’s bet would payout €319,440.
However, the Entain-owned Ladbrokes has refused to payout the bet as both races are currently under IHRB investigation. Raceday stewards for both events referred the winners to the IHRB referrals committee due to their apparent form improvement.
The IHRB confirmed in a statement last week that the “winner all right was given on the day following both races” and that the investigation “is now nearing its conclusion and a decision will be taken shortly as to what further action, if any, will be taken”.
In addition, the regulatory board confirmed that Phelan was not the subject of the investigation.
The Racing Post also reported that Ladbrokes sent a letter to Phelan in June, stating that an attempt to collect the bet was made on 22 April, due to pay €100,000 as this is the maximum daily payout limit for an over the counter wager placed in a betting shop for the type of races Rocky’s Diamond and Diamond Nora won.
However, Phelan was blocked from collecting the bet and it has not been paid out.
Ladbrokes awaits investigation outcome
Ladbrokes told the Racing Post that they take integrity matters “extremely seriously” and that the approach taken is in line with the operator’s terms and conditions.
The operator’s statement read: “The IHRB is conducting an ongoing investigation into these races and we are awaiting the outcome before settling bets related to this investigation.
“When a sporting governing body is investigating the integrity of a sports event on which we have taken notable bets, we will await the outcome of those proceedings before settling bets relating to the matter under investigation.
“We take integrity matters in sport extremely seriously and our approach is entirely consistent with our terms and conditions and how we would approach any sports event under investigation.”
Terms in focus
Terms and conditions have been a focus of legal cases in the early part of the year after the High Court ruled against Paddy Power over their decision not to pay a player following an online slot win.
The operator was ordered to pay customer Corrinne Pearl Durber compensation of £1m in relation to a disputed payout of a “Monster Jackpot.”
The incident took place in October 2020, whilst Durber was playing the Wild Hatter slot on her iPad, she landed three jackpot symbols, activating the Jackpot Game Round of the slot.
The Jackpot Round of the Wild Hatter slot rewards players with prizes such as Cash Booster, Daily Jackpot and Monster Jackpot, determined by spinning a wheel. Upon hitting ‘play,’ the wheel stopped on the Monster Jackpot prize, with the screen displaying to Durber that she had won £1m.
However, upon payout, Durber was awarded a Daily Jackpot prize of £20,000. She immediately contacted Paddy Power’s customer service team, who informed her that a “software error” had caused the incorrect display.
Speaking to the iGamingDaily in the aftermath of this decision, Anna Soilleux-Mills, Partner, CMS, emphasised that the decision should act as a key reminder to operators not to be too broad with their terms and conditions.
“It’s a really good illustration of why all these things are very important,” she stated. “The first issue to look at when looking at your terms and conditions is are they consistent? Are they potentially saying different things in different places?
“Then, how binding are your terms and conditions? Generally, the courts accept that click to accept is fine to create a legally binding contract. However, if there are any terms in your terms and conditions that are deemed to be onerous or unexpected for a consumer, you need to do more to bring them to a consumer’s attention in order for them to be binding.
“So you may have individual terms and conditions which aren’t legally enforceable against a consumer if they’re unexpected or onerous. Again, this was a problem in this case. And then, finally, you can have terms which aren’t fair because of the way that they’re drafted. You need to get all of that right in order for them to be enforceable.”
