Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(1) INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY PLC (2) IGT GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED (3) GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION (4) IGT (UK3) LIMITED (5) IGT UK INTERACTIVE LIMITED (6) IGT UK LIMITED Claimants -and- THE GAMBLING COMMISSION Defendant -and- (1) ALLWYN ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED (2) ALLWYN INTERNATIONAL AS Interested Parties ____________________
Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected] ____________________
A P P E A R A N C E S MR P MOSER KC, MR E WEST, MS J COYNE and MS C KELLEHER (instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MISS S HANNAFORD KC, MR J NEILL, MISS R GROGAN and MR B McCAY (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. MR J BARRETT and MR M BIRDLING (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP) appeared on behalf of the Interested Parties. MR Z SAMMOUR (instructed by Linklaters LLP) appeared on behalf of Camelot. ____________________
i) Claimant 1, International Game Technology Plc, is a UK company and is the ultimate holding company for all of the other defendants.
iii) The third claimant, IGT�Global Solutions Corporation, is a US company that would have been a sub-contractor if Camelot had won the competition for the fourth licence.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.