A compulsive gambler who squandered more than £2 million at the bookmakers lost again today after a High Court judge rejected his claim for compensation and damages from William Hill.
Mr Justice Briggs ruled that the bookmaker owed Graham Calvert no duty of care even though he had requested that they stop taking his money under their own self-exclusion policy.
The judge said that although William Hill had failed to take reasonable steps to exclude Mr Calvert from telephone gambling in line with their own guidelines, pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin, just over a longer period of time.
In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Briggs 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, 28, sued William Hill for damages after losing his wife, health and livelihood to his gambling addiction.
Anneliese Day, representing Mr Calvert at the High Court, told the judge at a hearing last month that William Hill should be held liable for her client's financial plight because of its failure to operate its own policy.
She said Mr Calvert, a greyhound trainer from Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne and Wear, was hoping to establish in law for the first time that bookies do owe a duty of care in his circumstances.
advertisement
Miss Day said the scale of her client's gambling was "staggering".
At a previous hearing the court heard how Mr Calvert placed huge multiple bets in the space of a few hours and lost around £347,000 in one bet alone when he backed the US to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.
Mr Calvert, who ended up borrowing money to fund his habit, was described by Miss Day as an accomplished greyhound trainer who ran the family business from a farm in County Durham.
Before his gambling addiction took hold he was "comfortably well-off", although he had been involved in gambling for most of his life.
"The claimant's descent from betting being a hobby to betting being a disorder appears to have commenced when he began betting by telephone."
Miss Day said that Mr Calvert began "staking larger and larger sums of money with increasing frequency and decreasing regard for the consequences".