$1.4m betting claim twist

A SUPREME Court showdown between a Melbourne punter and Beteasy over a $1.4m multi-bet win has heated up with the bookmaker launching a counterclaim.

Renee Bell filed legal action against the betting agency in April alleging she only received $250,000 of her winnings. Beteasy, formerly known as Crownbet, claimed their terms and conditions were clear that they have a maximum daily payout of $250,000. But in a twist, Beteasy this month has filed its own claim against Ms Bell, alleging she breached her account contract and should return the winnings it paid her.

Beteasy allege Ms Bell: ALLOWED a third party to directly or indirectly use her account;

USED her account on behalf of or for the benefit of another person;

WAS not the true and lawful owner of the moneys she waged; and

DID not make every effort to prevent the use of her account by a third party.

Beteasy claimed Ms Bell made the bets on behalf of Ian Bell.

Ms Bell said she never agreed to the terms and conditions and was automatically signed up for the betting account when joining the Signature Club at Crown Casino in

July 2015. She used the account to place five multi-bets with five legs on May 18, 2018 involving different win-place combinations of the same four horses in races at Morphettville, Flemington, Doomben and Wodonga, as well as West Coast Eagles to beat Richmond in an AFL match.

The horses — Miss Iano, Marcel from Madrid, Jaminzah and Praguematist — each won their races on May 19, 2018. The next day, the Eagles beat the Tigers. But Ms Bell said Beteasy refused to payout the total winnings of $1,443,695.90.

She said it was “misleading and deceptive conduct” to accept the bets without any warning they were subject to the maximum daily payout.

“To the contrary, the defendant accepted the full amount of the plaintiff’s stake for each bet without any deduction or limitation and recorded the plaintiff’s bet as returning the full amount of potential claimed.

Beteasy said it paid Ms Bell $250,000 in winnings as part of bet 1, and refunded her $1125 stake in the other bets on May 21, 2019, “under the mistake of fact” she had complied with the terms and conditions.

“In the premises, Beteasy is entitled to a refund of the payments from the plaintiff,” it claimed.

The case returns to the Supreme Court on November 13. winnings,” her writ