O'Brien v MGN Ltd
| O’Brien v MGN Ltd | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | Lee Headley O'Brien v MGN Limited |
| Decided | August 1, 2001 |
| Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1279 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Potter LJ, Hale LJ, Anthony Evens |
| Keywords | |
| Reasonable notice, incorporation | |
O’Brien v MGN Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1279 is an English contract law case, concerning incorporation of terms through reasonable notice.
Facts
The defendant put scratchcards with its newspapers-- Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and The People. If the card came up with money, players called a premium rate number to see if the amount matched a mystery bonus cash amount. Mr O’Brien on 3 July 1995 got two sums of £50,000. 1472 other people did as well, because MGN had distributed too many by mistake. MGN had only intended to have one prize of £50,000. MGN held a draw among the 1472. MGN pointed to "Rule 5", which said there would be a draw where more prizes were claimed than available. Rule 5, however, although published in some newspapers, was not to be found in the 3 July 1995 edition. This only said ‘Normal Mirror Group rules apply.’ Mr O’Brien had seen that. The question was whether Rule 5 was incorporated into the scratchcard agreement.
Judgment
Hale LJ held that Rule 5 was incorporated. She noted that Rule 5 was no big burden on the claimant like in Interfoto nor excluding liability for injury like Thornton, but simply deprived a windfall.[1] She also noted that in the test for incorporation, the words ‘onerous or unusual’ are not ‘terms of art’.[2] Potter LJ concurred with Hale LJ.
Sir Anthony Evans was doubtful that judge’s reasons were right and thought the rule was onerous enough to require more notice.
See also
- Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416
- Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532
- Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
- J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461
- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163.