The important position that Mr Alexander was seeking to highlight was that of the 28 agreements, where there is a requirement to inform the Gambling Commission of the underlying facts, we have in the last 12 months complied with this and will continue to do so, and that none of the agreements prevented the customer or third party from speaking to any regulator, including the Gambling Commission about the underlying dispute or the agreement itself https://www.suissecasinoenligne.com/machines-a-sous/.”

It is clear to us that the agreements which GvC prefer not to call NDAs are agreements which almost invariably, if not always, include a provision prohibiting the other party from disclosing the terms of the agreement to anyone other than the regulator. We can understand that, in the course of his oral evidence, Mr Alexander might have been mistaken in saying that all 28 agreements had been “fully disclosed to the Gambling Commission”, but it is unfortunate that we had to ask for further supplementary evidence before the true position was revealed.

Finally, although GvC “would not offer to pay someone more money in return for signing a settlement agreement,” we are left with the distinct impression that they would not be prepared to pay any money to someone who was unwilling to sign a settlement agreement with a non-disclosure clause.