HT-2022-000132 - [2025] EWHC 1522 (TCC)

Save where it can be shown that there is “a very high probability” that one party will succeed at trial, the court will not attempt to assess the merits of an underlying claim when assessing an application for security for costs (see OCM Singapore Njord Holdings Hardrada Pte Ltd v Gulf Petrochem FZC [2021] EWHC 2447 (Comm) per HHJ Pelling at [21]). It is not suggested here that an analysis of the merits would be of any assistance in connection with either of the two applications that are before the court. Accordingly I need only provide a brief background summary of the proceedings in this case.

This litigation arises out of a procurement process run by the Gambling Commission (“the Commission”) for the award of the Fourth National Lottery Licence (the “Fourth Licence”) which took place between 2019 and 2022. The First Claimant is an SPV established by the Second Claimant for the specific purpose of competing in the Fourth National Lottery Competition (the “Competition”).

The Claimants did not succeed in obtaining the Fourth Licence and they now make two claims against the Commission. In their first claim (“the Scoring Claim”), the Claimants challenge both the fairness of the Competition on the basis that the Commission breached the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, which governed the running of the Competition, and the decision to award the Fourth Licence to the First and Second Interested Parties (“Allwyn”). The Claimants’ second claim challenges modifications which have been made to (i) the Enabling Agreement between the Commission and Allwyn, which governs the transition to the Fourth Licence; and (ii) the Fourth Licence itself (“the Modifications Claim”). The Claimants claim damages of approximately £1.3 billion in the Modifications Claim.