The £286,000 bet that was lost for want of a few words

The Front Runner is Chris Cook's morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, available here as a free sample.

In Monday's email Chris reflects on a fascinating court case involving bookmaker Paddy Power – and subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from Chris every Monday to Friday.

Members' Club Ultimate subscribers who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should click here to sign up and start receiving emails immediately!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content, including tipping from the likes of Pricewise and Paul Kealy, all the big interviews and features, daily comment and news analysis.

A fascinating court case from last summer has had a sad end, or at least what looks like the end. An argument put forward by the punter James Longley that Paddy Power owe him £286,000 was rejected by Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, a High Court judge, in a verdict published on the eve of the 2,000 Guineas.

If I thought she was a fan of the game, I might perhaps wonder if the publication had been timed so as to minimise media reaction. In reality, she was probably as oblivious of the date's significance as everyone else not yet in thrall to horse racing.

Longley, you may recall, fancied Redemptive at Wolverhampton one Saturday in late 2019 and called the firm to ask for £1,300 each-way at 16-1. The operator who took his call had to seek approval from traders but made the mistake upon which this whole litigation turns, asking (and getting) approval for a stake ten times larger than Longley had sought.

Longley asked for X. Paddy Power agreed to 10X. Was it a contract? No, says Mrs Justice Ellenbogen. The mistake at the heart of this attempted transaction means there was no valid offer and acceptance, which the law demands before it will recognise an enforceable contract.

A Paddy Power spokesperson said on Monday afternoon: "We welcome the High Court’s judgment in this matter and we have honoured Mr Longley’s £1,300 each-way bet."

Longley's solicitors tell me: "Mr Longley is disappointed by the judgment and is currently considering an appeal."

I hope he will press on, not because I'm anxious to sit through another three days of contract-related legalese but because the outcome here does not strike me as just. Of course, the downside for Longley in taking the case any further is the risk of additional expense; it is being reported that proceedings to this point have cost him around £85,000.

The most important part of this case, for me, is that Paddy Power were perfectly willing to accept a bet of £13,000 each-way on Redemptive from Longley. They were not cheated or tricked or strongarmed. They took their time, considered the situation in full and said yes.

Redemptive won. Only then did the bookmaker's trading staff look for a way out.

Included in the judgment is an anguished email from the trader who took the bet, to his colleagues after the race. "I have been guilty of massively overlaying a horse this evening," he wrote. "I looked at the customers business for the day 16 bets & he seemed to be chasing for some reason the liability went out of my mind... I can only apologise for this massive error on my part & I cant explain why the liability didn't register with me."

Well, yikes. Evidence that a customer was chasing their losses made a Paddy Power trader inclined to accept further bets. How does that fit with responsible gambling?

On the following Monday, the same trader asked customer services to listen to a recording of the call Longley made when he asked for the bet. And imagine his joy and relief when the answer came back that actually Longley had wanted a much smaller bet. At the trader's instruction, the bet was resettled, with £286,000 being hoiked out of Longley's account and £28,600 credited to it, prompting the law suit.

So much money, depending on an exchange of words lasting just a few seconds. The verdict reproduces Longley's conversation with the phone operator, who eventually told him.

Op: Hi, I got that cleared with a trader for you, if you like?

JL: Yeah, lovely.

Op: Alright, so that's going to be twenty-six thousand coming from [account name], is that correct?

JL: That's it, yeah.

Op: Set for clearance.

JL: Thank you.

Op: And your bet is on fine, Mr Longley.

JL: Lovely.

Op: Yeah, that's on fine, sir.

JL: Cheers, thank you.

Longley told the court, and the judge accepted, that he noticed immediately when the operator mentioned the much larger sum. The argument was made on his behalf that a contract arose from this conversation, between two sides who are happy to agree on a bet of £13,000 each-way. Longley readily accepted that he had a smaller sum in mind when he called, but he was delighted to stake a larger bet and was well able to afford it as a multi-millionaire from the sale of his business.

But the judge said: "I am satisfied that, as a question of fact, the traders' intention... was that Paddy Power would accept Mr Longley's requested bet, which they erroneously understood to have been of £13,000 each way. I am also satisfied that... Mr Longley immediately appreciated that the larger stake did not reflect Paddy Power's true intention.

"As he acknowledged in cross-examination, in his approximately ten years as an account-holder Paddy Power had never offered him a bet at a stake higher than he had requested, let alone one at ten times the latter. Mr Longley is an experienced and sophisticated gambler who, I am satisfied, realised at the time, as would have anyone in that position, that a mistake had been made somewhere along the line."

Perhaps he did. But even then, Longley would have needed a very sharp legal brain to know for sure that his bet was not on as a consequence of that mistake.

Let's imagine that Longley was the kind of self-possessed person who can respond immediately in the ideal manner to everything that is said to him. What would he need to have said to that phone operator to strike a bet at £13,000 each-way that would be enforced by Mrs Justice Ellenbogen? Possibly this:

JL: I'm sorry, there's evidently been a mistake. I was only asking for £1,300 each-way. But I'm delighted to bet £13,000 each-way if Paddy Power is happy to take it?

Op: Oh. I must have misunderstood. Sorry about that, Mr Longley. But yes, the traders have cleared you for a bet of £13,000 each-way.

JL: Splendid. Let's do that.

Three lines of boring, explanatory dialogue in which those involved do not change their positions. They merely vocalise what is in their minds.

Is that all it would have taken to make Longley a winner? To deny Paddy Power a way out of paying for the bet they were happy to take? Is the absence of something so trifling really enough to deny this punter his payout?

If so, I conclude that there is a God and He loves bookies.

Monday's picks

If you're desperate to win a handicap, running in maidens and novice races on turf and then switching to all-weather handicaps is not a bad way to go, I've always felt, because the level of competition is higher in grass racing. You can hope for a rating which will be beatable if you're able to express your ability on an artificial surface.

Anyway, Queen's Fair is trying to do it the other way, making her handicap debut at Musselburgh today. As she's a sister to a Breeders' Cup winner and races off 67 here, it's tempting to conclude she'll have more to offer but she didn't exactly look a winner waiting to happen at Kempton when last seen and it's taken this four-year-old a long time to reach this stage.

I'll go against her with Lucayan (2.20), who was a non-runner when I fancied her at Beverley the other day. She's been running well in recent defeats and this stiffer test ought to help.

With Hugo Palmer firing out winners from his new base, Skittlebombz (3.40) is interesting at Wolverhampton. He ran as though needing his Pontefract reappearance a fortnight ago but was progressive as a juvenile and there's every chance we'll see him pick up the thread now, despite odds of 15-2.

'He holds outstanding claims.' Richard Birch has tips for Monday

Three things to look out for today . . .

1. Successful with two of their three runners at Lingfield on Saturday, the training team of Charlie and Mark Johnston have an interesting newcomer in the opener at Musselburgh. Jungle Fever, who takes on five rivals in a two-year-old maiden race, is a brother to Winter Power, winner of last year's Nunthorpe. Winter Power took three attempts to break his duck as a juvenile but he did improve through that season to land the Cornwallis at the end of it. Jungle Fever's main rival is Brian Ellison's Chattel Village, who ran above market expectations to be third at Thirsk nine days ago.

2. We've been hearing plenty about Aidan O'Brien's Derby entrants and he fields another one in the opener at Roscommon. But Victoria Road, his only runner of the day, is entered in next year's Derby rather than next month's Classic because he's a juvenile just starting out on his career. He's descended from King's Stand winner Cassandra Go and is out of a half-sister to Halfway To Heaven, dam of Magical. He's also only the third of Saxon Warrior's children to make the track, so there's no shortage of reasons to take an interest in how he fares. By the way, his opponents include Yaya Ding Dong, named after an Icelandic pub song invented for a 2020 movie about Eurovision.

3. There are potential Derby clues everywhere at this time of year and there may even be one in a novice race at Windsor tonight. Sir Michael Stoute's Crystal Delight, who seems likely to start favourite, was an eyecatcher on his debut a fortnight ago, chasing home Magisterial at Leicester. Magisterial is second-favourite for the Dante on Thursday and connections would surely like to see a big run here from the horse they beat the other day, to keep the dream alive for at least a few more days. Crystal Delight is out of Crystal Capella, who won York's Middleton Stakes in this week 13 years ago.

One story you must read today

Injured Luxembourg is out of the Derby picture.

Read these next:

'Saturday was what it's all about' - Kevin Philippart de Foy aiming for the top

Baaeed and Stradivarius set to return in a star-studded week at York and Newbury

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday