Gambler loses case against bookmaker

Compulsive gambler Graham Calvert, who had claimed bookmaker William Hill should have stopped him placing bets, lost his case…

Compulsive gambler Graham Calvert, who had claimed bookmaker William Hill should have stopped him placing bets, lost his case today.

The greyhound trainer from Houghton Le Spring, Tyne and Wear, was suing for negligence as well as compensation for personal injuries at the High Court in London.

The 28-year-old, described by his lawyers as a "pathological gambler", claimed he had lost more than £2 million (€2.6 million), as well as his marriage, livelihood and health as a result of a six-month gambling spree in 2006.

In the landmark case, Calvert's legal team had argued the bookmaker had been guilty of "negligent encouragement and inducement" by not acting to curb its client's gambling, even though he had indicated he wanted them to on at least two occasions.

READ MORE

William Hill had instead sought to encourage Calvert to go on huge betting sprees, breaching their own "self-exclusion" policy, they added.

But Mr Justice Michael Briggs said William Hill had no legal responsibility to protect their customers from the consequences of their gambling.

"William Hill owed no common law duty in 2006 to its known problem-gambler customers to protect them from the financial and psychological consequences of their gambling," he said.

The judge added that as far as Calvert was concerned, William Hill's failure to take care to exclude him from telephone gambling in the second half of 2006 did not cause him any measurable financial or other loss.

"Had William Hill taken care to exclude Mr Calvert from telephone gambling for six months, his pathological gambling disorder would still probably have brought about his financial ruin, but over a longer period of time," he said.

"This is because he would have continued to gamble both at William Hill's betting shops and with other bookmakers."

Calvert had suffered a deterioration in his gambling disorder during the six months, the judge observed.

If the judge had awarded damages for both claims, it could have increased the vulnerability of bookmakers to legal suits.

William Hill called the decision a victory for common sense.

Calvert was given the right to appeal.