The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and ruled that English courts lack jurisdiction over Playtech’s trade secrets lawsuit against OnAir Entertainment’s parent company Realtime SIA and employee Igors Veliks, ending the UK proceedings.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed Playtech’s trade secrets and copyright infringement case against Realtime SIA and Igors Veliks, ruling that English courts do not have proper jurisdiction over the dispute.
The judgment, delivered on November 21, 2025, by Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Nugee, and Lady Justice Falk, reversed a January 2025 High Court decision that had allowed the case to proceed in England and Wales.
The Case Background
The dispute originated from allegations that Veliks, a former employee of Playtech’s Latvian subsidiary Euro Live Technologies, retained access to Playtech’s internal Horizon platform after joining competitor Realtime SIA in August 2021. Playtech claimed this access was used to develop two competing games: Travel Fever and Diamond Rush Roulette.
Realtime operates the OnAir Entertainment live casino brand and is part of the Games Global group.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal’s ruling focused on a fundamental question: where did the direct damage occur?
Lord Justice Arnold found that Playtech’s case centered entirely on indirect consequences, specifically lost licensing revenue in the UK, rather than direct damage. Critically, Playtech provided no evidence that either of the allegedly infringing games had been downloaded, accessed, or even made available to UK consumers.
“The mere fact that Playtech loses revenue in the UK is not sufficient for this purpose,” the judgment stated.
The court noted that approximately 94% of alleged unauthorized access to Horizon occurred from Latvian IP addresses, with no access from the UK. Both Veliks and Realtime are based in Latvia, and Veliks’ employment contract with Euro Live was governed by Latvian law with an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring Latvian courts.
Under the Rome II Regulation, which governs cross-border non-contractual obligations, the applicable law is determined by where direct damage occurs. The court concluded that all direct damage was sustained in Latvia, making Latvian law applicable and Latvia the proper forum for any legal proceedings.
The court also dismissed Playtech’s copyright claim, finding that Latvia was the appropriate jurisdiction for that matter as well.
Legal Implications
The ruling establishes that claimants in trade secrets cases must demonstrate direct damage in their chosen jurisdiction, not merely show they are headquartered there or suffered indirect financial losses.
Alex Sharples, Partner at Trowers & Hamlins, which represented Veliks, stated: “This is an important judgment for our client to correct the decision of the High Court in permitting a claim to proceed against our client here in England & Wales.”
The decision has significant implications for cross-border intellectual property disputes in the gaming industry, clarifying that evidence of actual market impact, such as product downloads or availability to consumers, is necessary to establish jurisdiction.
Source:
