## Facts

- Hillside (New Media) Limited, part of the bet365 group, operated an online gambling website owned and run from England.
- Bjarte Baasland, a Norwegian national, opened two accounts and placed thousands of sports and casino bets between 2005 and 2008, allegedly losing more than £2.9 million.
- The website required customers to accept online terms and conditions (“Rules”) when opening accounts; the Rules treated wagers as placed in England and included governing-law/jurisdiction provisions for different bet categories.
- After incurring losses and financial difficulty, Baasland (through Norwegian counsel) notified Hillside of intended litigation, asserting Hillside should take responsibility and indicating reliance on Norwegian law.
- Hillside filed in the Commercial Court seeking a negative declaration that it was not liable for Baasland’s losses and that English law governed any claims.
- Baasland’s jurisdiction challenge under the Lugano Convention was dismissed; he later failed to serve a defense and did not participate in Hillside’s summary-judgment application.

## Issues

1. Whether English law governed any threatened contractual or tort claims arising from Baasland’s online gambling losses, including under Rome II conflict-of-laws principles.
2. Whether Baasland had any real prospect, under English law, of establishing liability (including negligence or other tort theories) against Hillside for his gambling losses.
3. Whether it was appropriate to grant summary judgment and a negative declaration when the defendant had not pleaded or pursued a substantive case.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Hillside and issued the negative declaration sought.
- The court held English law governed any potential contractual or tortious claims connected with Baasland’s gambling on the bet365 website.
- Applying English law, the court concluded Baasland had no real prospect of establishing Hillside’s liability in tort or otherwise for losses arising from his voluntary gambling activity.
- The court rejected application of consumer-contract special rules on the evidentiary record, finding no basis to treat the website’s general internet availability as “advertising” or a specific invitation satisfying the relevant consumer conditions.
- The court considered the pre-repeal effect of s. 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 (rendering gaming contracts null/void) and found it did not create an actionable route for Baasland to recover gambling losses from the operator.

## Legal Principles

- In online gambling disputes, applicable law may be determined by locating the place of direct damage and by identifying the country with the most closely connected relationship under conflict-of-laws rules, including Rome II principles.
- General internet accessibility of a website, without more, does not itself establish the type of directed “advertising” or specific invitation necessary to trigger certain consumer-jurisdiction protections on the facts presented.
- Under English law, an online gambling operator does not generally owe an adult customer a tort duty to protect the customer from purely financial loss resulting from the customer’s voluntary gambling, even if the customer alleges addiction and severe losses.
- Summary judgment and negative declaratory relief may be granted where the threatened claim has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial, including where the defendant fails to plead or participate.

## Conclusion

The Commercial Court held that English law governed the threatened cross-border dispute and, because the bettor had no viable English-law basis to shift his voluntary gambling losses to the operator, the court entered summary judgment declaring the operator not liable in tort or otherwise.


Hillside (New Media) Ltd. v. Baasland, [2010] EWHC 3336 (Comm) (Eng.)