A court in the United Kingdom has been left to decide whether a lottery winner will be awarded $1.2 million or $12 after a technical blunder.
Joan Parker-Grennan from Boston, Lincolnshire believes that she has rightfully won a cash sum of $1.2 million (£1 million) from Camelot, saying the National Lottery operator should pay up.
However, Camelot is disputing the claim stating that they only owe the winner $12 (£10).
Now the case is in the hands of Sir Robert Maurice Jay, better known by Judge Justice Jay.
During a High Court hearing in London on Tuesday, Judge Jay heard that Parker-Grennan had played online after buying an Instant Win Game ticket worth $6 (£5) on August 25, 2015.
As per the Independent, the game's rules are as follows; if a number in the "your numbers" section of the screen matched one in the winning numbers section, the two matching numbers would turn white, indicating that the player had won the prize "designated by those matching numbers" which in this case, is causing the dispute.
Camelot stated that "at the point" that Parker-Grennan bought her ticket, its computer system predetermined her prize to be $12. However, the judge was then told that there had been a "technical issue" which could result in "different graphical animation" being displayed on some players’ screens which ultimately led to the misunderstanding.
Two numbers with a designated prize of £10 were highlighted on the player's screen with a message saying: "Congratulations, you have won [$12]" but it was also alleged that another two matching numbers on the screen specified that the prize sum was actually $1.2 million - a stark difference, that's for sure.
Parker-Grennan had hoped for a summary judgment in her favor as, according to her lawyers, the company cannot win at trial.
Barrister James Couser, who is representing Parker-Grennan during the case, said there was "no real prospect of the claim being successfully defended."
"The dispute between the parties is actually quite a narrow one," he told the judge in a written argument, though the National Lottery operator's representative argued the opposite.
"There is, at the lowest, a real prospect of Camelot successfully defending (Mrs Parker-Grennan’s) claim at trial," said Barrister Philip Hinks, adding that the company was only liable to pay the "outcome of the ticket as predetermined" by Camelot’s computer system.
"It is inappropriate for (the) claim to be determined summarily," he added.
Couser hit back stating: "The defendant says that the terms mean that the claimant is bound by what it intended the outcome of the game to have been, despite the fact that was not what the game was programmed to do accorded with what the relevant contractual term said it could do."
Judge Jay described the case as "interesting" and said he aimed to deliver a ruling in the "near future", as per the outlet.
It remains to be seen whether Parker-Grennan will walk away with a life-changing sum or pocket change.
.jpg_h8MTHP?tr=h-184)
