This is an 'old' news story - the casino won. Search Casinomeister News for the full report.
The casino may have won the case, but from the comments it seems they have lost the PR battle.
Most contributors don't see a software bug being allowed to go live as a valid excuse for voiding winnings. Most cite the belief that had the bug been in the casino's favour, the house would have kept quiet, or denied there could possibly be a bug.
Sadly, this seems to be true, as most bugs favouring the casino are denied at first, and only persistent pressure and mathematical evidence from the player community persuades the casino to think again.
The great AP/UB poker scandal was one such case, with the bug only being exposed when CS mistakenly released too much information to a player who had access to mathematical skills good enough to make a near watertight case for cheating.
We also have the English Harbour case where a bug was innocently introduced during an update that favoured the house, and was repeatedly denied until again players got together and were able to provide statistical evidence of the flaw.
This has lead to players believing that the "malfunction voids play" rule is not enforced fairly, but enforcement is biased towards cases where the bug favours the player.
The one good thing that came out of this was that the UK courts were interested in hearing the case, even though it related to a gambling debt and an offshore operator. It shows that operators who take UK players cannot rely on hiding behind their terms and conditions. It also shows that players who defraud casinos may also find themselves appearing in court having been sued by the casino.