Cape Town -
A young man who claims he won R5.84 million on South Africa’s biggest online sports betting website is set for a David vs Goliath-type battle to get his winnings after the site owners said R1m was all they were prepared to pay him.
Darren Ward, a quality assurance piping inspector, spent R100 on two bets on sportingbet.co.za and site operator Netbet paid him out R1m, saying that was the maximum amount players could win in a day’s betting.
But the Durban punter is having none of it, and has asked the Western Cape High Court to order Netbet to pay him R4.84m – R5.1m minus tax – plus interest dating back to November 2014, when he placed the bets.
Judge Siraj Desai will have to make the ultimate decision.
In papers before the High Court, it emerged users have to register online before bets can be placed.
And when registering, they tick a box indicating they accept the associated terms and conditions.
Ward followed the process, but said he didn’t read the terms.
That was in March 2014 and in the months following he placed more than 500 bets.
Lady luck paid him a visit on October 31, 2014.
He placed a bet known as an accumulator, which requires the selection of more than one sporting event.
Ward selected eight horse racing events – six at Fairview Racecourse and two at Greyville in Durban.
He placed two bets of R50 each – one that each of the selected horses would win its race and the second that each need only achieve one of the top places in its race.
All eight horses won, however, and the payout displayed on the betting slip was R5.15m.
To his extreme dismay, Ward was later told he’d only receive R1m because clause 9.1 of the terms and conditions indicates that the maximum amount a customer can win in one day’s betting, regardless of the stake, is R1m.
Although the betting slip warned punters limits may be applicable to winnings and directed them to a link leading to the terms and conditions, Ward only became aware of the limit after he claimed payment.
His argument is the limitation contained in the terms and conditions contradicts the “possible payout” indicated on the betting slip.
“The betting slip was placed on the respondent’s website. The respondent (not I) was the author thereof.
“In those circumstances, I am advised that, in the case of ambiguity, the agreement must be interpreted in a manner which favours me, not the respondent,” he submitted.
Ward said Netbet led him to reasonably believe he would be paid R4.8m if he chose all eight winning horses and it was therefore deemed to have agreed to pay the total possible payout to him on the basis of quasi-mutual assent.
Netbet countered Ward was not entitled to approach the court because the dispute should have been referred to the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board.
In an affidavit, co-founder and director Tyrone Scott Dobbin said Netbet ensured prior to and subsequent to placing a bet, the following words appear: “Please note limits may be applicable on your winnings, click here for details.”
The words are displayed under the “possible return” on the betting formula and again on the betting slip.
Ticking the box to indicate acceptance of the terms and conditions had the effect of an electronic signature, he argued.
Dobbin said judging from the number of times Ward had placed bets before he won, his attention would have been drawn to the maximum limit numerous times.
When the application was heard on Tuesday, Netbet advocate David Gess submitted, in terms of Gambling Board Rules, all licence holders were required to limit winnings.
This was to ensure licence holders could meet their obligations.
If winnings were limitless, licence holders could become insolvent, he said.
Judgment was reserved.
Sunday Argus