Hestview Limited and another (Respondents) v RTM (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0100

Parties

Appellant(s)

RTM

Respondent(s)

(1) Hestview Limited (2) Bonne Terre Limited

Issue

(1) Is the concept of consent in data protection and e-privacy legislation a purely objective one, or does it contain subjective elements? (2) Under what circumstances is it procedurally unfair for the Court of Appeal to determine an issue without seeking or considering submissions from one of the parties on that issue? (3) Under what circumstances can the Court of Appeal remit issues to a different judge than the one who heard the first trial?

Facts

The respondents, known collectively as SBG, operate an online betting and gaming business under the trading name “Sky Betting and Gaming”. The appellant, RTM was a problem gambler whose name has been anonymised. SBG placed cookies on RTM’s devices or his browser, processed his personal data, and sent him targeted direct marketing. RTM used SBG’s services and lost large sums of money. RTM later sued SBG for compensation and declarations, contending that he was a gambling addict; that SBG had acted unlawfully in its placement of cookies, its processing of his personal data, and its direct marketing communications; that this caused him to gamble more and to lose more than he would otherwise have done; and that he had thereby suffered financial loss and distress. On 23 January 2025, the High Court delivered judgment in favour of RTM on the issue of liability. The question of potential remedy was deferred to be considered at a later stage. SBG successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal on five separate grounds, the most important of which concerned whether the concept of “consent” is a purely objective one. RTM appeals to the Supreme Court.