 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 March
2008 Gambler Loses
£2m William Hill Court Case A compulsive
gambler has lost his bid at the High Court to force
bookmaker William
Hill to
repay his £2m losses. Greyhound trainer
Graham Calvert, 28, of Houghton-le-Spring, near
Sunderland, said the company failed in its "duty of
care" and the judge agreed. But Mr Justice
Briggs ruled on Wednesday that William Hill was not
liable for the losses. He ordered Mr
Calvert to pay £175,000 interim costs to the
firm, but the payment is on hold pending an
appeal. The judge said he
would only pay 80% of the estimated £420,000
bookmakers costs after the late disclosure of key
evidence. He ruled that
although the company failed to take "reasonable
steps" to stop Mr Calvert from telephone gambling,
Mr Calvert's "pathological gambling" would still
probably have led to his financial ruin. In summary of his
ruling 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." Mr Calvert had
also sought further compensation after he claimed
he had not only lost money but also his wife,
health and livelihood. William Hill was
accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to
gain as much revenue as possible by letting him
place bets after asking it to close his account
under a self-exclusion scheme. It was alleged
the bookmaker allowed Mr Calvert to open two new
accounts and to make bets totalling about
£3.5m between June and December 2006. During
this period he lost a total of
£2.1m. The company
denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held
legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses. David Hood,
spokesman for William Hill, said: "We stated from
the outset that there was no case to answer to Mr
Calvert. The judge found that no general duty of
care is owed to problem gamblers and that Hills
handling of Mr Calvert's calls did not cause his
loss." The judge granted
permission to appeal against the ruling and Mr
Calvert has until 16 April to lodge an
appeal. Ward Hadaway, the
law firm representing Mr Calvert, said: "It is
particularly disappointing that the judge decided
not to award our client any damages because he was
so critical of William Hill. The criticism was of
the way in which they dealt with our client and of
their self-exclusion procedures generally. He found
that William Hill had failed Mr Calvert in a number
of different ways. The judgment highlighted the
need for a national database allowing problem
gamblers to self-exclude from all bookmakers in one
go." |
|
|
|
Contact Us - Casinos - Privacy Policy Copyright © 2009 CasinoBeacon.co.uk |