News

Belfast woman sues bookmakers over failure to pay out almost £1 million in winnings

Megan McCann is taking action against bet365 in Belfast High Court over the company's failure to pay out almost £1 million in winnings
Megan McCann is taking action against bet365 in Belfast High Court over the company's failure to pay out almost £1 million in winnings Megan McCann is taking action against bet365 in Belfast High Court over the company's failure to pay out almost £1 million in winnings

A BELFAST woman is suing a leading bookmakers for refusing to pay out £1 million in winnings on a bet on horses.

Megan McCann is taking the action against Hillside (UK Sports) LP, the company which operates bet365, at Belfast High Court in a dispute over a bet placed last summer.

Ms McCann placed a series of 960 'Lucky 15' bets, at £13 each way, on 12 horses competing in four races at Bath, Kempton and Naas on June 22 last year.

Along with Ms McCann's initial stake of £24,960 - which has yet to be returned to her - the Belfast woman has not been paid her £985,000 winning prize.

In a case which could have widespread consequences, The Daily Telegraph has reported that the firm has claimed Miss McCann is in "flagrant breach" of its terms and conditions because it believes the original betting stake was supplied by a "third party".

In legal letters to bet365 and its parent company, Ms McCann's solicitors have written: "Our client's case is very straightforward. She placed a bet with your client. She won. She is entitled to her winnings."

Miss McCann's legal team have argued in the correspondence that the 'third party rules' at the centre of the dispute mean that "the husband who puts a bet on the winner of X-factor for his wife, or on the winner of the Grand National, would have those winnings 'robbed' of him."

In one response, bet365’s lawyers stated: "It is a case in which your client has been operating the account... using the funds of and for the benefit of third parties, in flagrant breach of our client's terms.

"Our client has reasonable grounds to suspect your client to be guilty of criminal offences including fraud by false representation; cheating or attempted cheating."