Procurement in a Nutshell – The latest National Lottery challenge
17th October, 2025
The latest case concerning the award for the National Lottery licence a few years ago is now before the courts. In case you were wondering or feeling confused about The New National Lottery Company (NLC) v Gambling Commission (GC) and Allwyn Entertainment Limited (Allwyn), this nutshell provides a breakdown of how the case has reached this point.
Background Information
In March 2022, it was announced that Allwyn had won its bid to be awarded the Fourth Licence to operate the National Lottery for a 10-year-period starting from February 2024. This win meant predecessor, Camelot, were to lose the licence running the national lottery after 28 years. It’s as a response to this, Camelot started legal action against the GC, accusing the regulator of getting the decision “badly wrong”. Subsequently, Camelot v Gambling Commission [2022] triggered an automatic suspension of the award by issuing proceedings. The High Court lifted the automatic suspension which allowed GC to award the licence to run the UK’s national lottery. Camelot were then granted permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal the High Court’s decision, meaning the automatic suspension stayed in place. However, Camelot withdrew their appeal and pursued a claim in damages only. Whilst this case is not the main focus of this nutshell, it provides vital background context.
Timeline of National Lottery v Gambling Commission
10th June 2024: [2024] WLUK 742
- The claimant (NLC) brought a procurement challenge against the GC. NLC alleged unequal treatment.
- NLC then brought a second claim (the modification claim) which alleged a set of modifications had been made to the contract which were unlawful as a fresh procurement exercise had not commenced.
- The court declined to grant an application for a split trial in the dispute over the procurement bid to run the national lottery. There was a real risk of duplication and delays if the trial was split.
- It is these claims which are now being heard in NLC v GC & Allwyn 2025.
5th February 2025: [2025] EWHC 486 (TCC)
- This was a case management hearing.
- The defendant had inadvertently disclosed thousands of documents which may have been mistakenly disclosed.
- The defendant sought a time extension and court dates to be moved in order to go through disclosed documents.
- The court granted the court date to be moved but not to the extent asked for by the defendant.
6th May 2025: [2025] EWHC 1058 (TCC)
- NLC applied for permission under CPR r.31.20 to use privileged documents inadvertently disclosed by the defendant.
- The court granted permission to use some of the privileged documents sought.
16th June 2025: [2025] EWHC 1522 (TCC)
- The defendant and Interested Parties (Ips) applied for a security of costs order against the claimant.
- The court refused to grant the order as there was no reasonable belief the claimant would be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so.
7th July 2025: [2025] EWHC 1710 (TCC)
- An application for an interested party (Allwyn) to become a party to the case.
- The court granted the application on the account it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case to treat Allwyn as a full party to the case rather than an interested party.
NLC v GC & Allwyn
These five previous hearings have established the landscape for NLC v GC & Allwyn to commence in the High Court.
The case is being heard because the claimant, The New Lottery Company (an investment vehicle of Mr Richmond Desmond who was an unsuccessful bidder for the national lottery licence) alleges the competition for the award of the licence was unlawful. As a result, NLC seeks damages said to be valued in excess of £1.3 billion.
What makes this case different to other procurement disputes?
The Fourth National Lottery Licence is valued at circa £8 billion, and it is generally considered to be one of the most valuable public contracts in the UK. Thus, due to the value of the claim and the extensive allegations made by NLC, the proceedings are perhaps amongst the most complex procurement disputes we have seen litigated in the UK recently.
Conclusion
A summary of the outcome of this case and the court’s reasoning will be included in a future edition of ‘Procurement in a Nutshell’, although given the complexity, this may not be for some time.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
