Gambler loses bid to regain £2m bets
Dec 17 2008 by Jon Tunney, The Journal
A COMPULSIVE gambler who parted with £2m lost his court battle against the bookies which took his money.
Graham Calvert launched legal action against national bookmaker’s chain William Hill for allowing him to carry on betting despite registering himself as a betting addict.
The 29-year-old was seeking compensation from the firm for allowing him to carry on placing bets.
But although ruling in William Hill’s favour – and awarding more than £50,000 costs against the gambler –- judges in London’s High Court ruled the firm had been negligent.
Calvert, a greyhound trainer from Houghton-le-Spring, claimed the bookmaker’s failed in its duty of care by allowing him to continue betting after he asked it to stop taking his money under its self-exclusion policy for problem gamblers. He complained William Hill allowed him to place telephone bets and and even to open a credit account.
But his claim was rejected by the High Court and now again by the Court of Appeal in London.
Calvert was not in court. He is serving a two-year jail sentence over cocaine and firearms charges.
He was refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords and was ordered to pay William Hill’s legal costs, starting with an interim payment of £50,000.
But the costs order was suspended pending a possible application directly to the Law Lords for leave to appeal.
High Court judge Mr Justice Briggs held that bookmakers were under no general duty of care to protect problem gamblers from the consequences of their compulsive behaviour.
In this specific case, William Hill, through one of its employees, had undertaken not to accept telephone bets from Calvert for six months.
It failed in its duty to enforce that prohibition.
But the judge decided that Calvert’s pathological gambling would have led to his financial ruin in any event because he would have laid bets with other bookmakers.
William Hill, although negligent, could not be held liable for his £2m losses.
Sir Anthony May, sitting with Lords Justices Lloyd and Etherton, said William Hill had not assumed responsibility to stop Calvert betting in other ways – such as through betting shops or on the internet.
Its duty was limited to refusing to accept telephone bets from him.
