A compulsive gambler who sued William Hill for
allowing him to continue betting until he was more than £2m down lost his
high court claim for compensation yesterday. Mr Justice Briggs ruled that the
bookmaker was not liable to Graham Calvert, even though he asked it to stop
taking his money under William Hill's self-exclusion policy.
Graham Calvert
The judge said that
although William Hill did agree to exclude Calvert from telephone gambling and
failed to take reasonable steps to do so, pathological gambling would still
probably have led to his financial ruin, but over a longer period of time. If
one bookmaker excluded him, he would simply go elsewhere. The judge said:
"William Hill's failure to take reasonable care to exclude him from telephone
gambling ... did not therefore cause Mr Calvert any measurable financial or
other loss." The 28-year-old greyhound trainer, from Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne
and Wear, claimed he had lost not only his money but also his wife, health and
livelihood through gambling. Anneliese Day, his counsel, told the judge last
month that William Hill should be held liable because it failed to operate its
own policy.
She said Calvert was hoping to establish in law that
bookmakers owe a duty of care in his circumstances.
She said the scale of her client's gambling was
"staggering." He lost around £347,000 in one bet when he backed the US to
win the 2006 Ryder Cup. Calvert, who was not in court, was granted permission
to take his case to the court of appeal.
Main Menu
Welcome to the News desk. 
