Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008]
Share
Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008] EWHC 454 (Ch) is an English tort law case concerning the duty of care owed by a bookmaker to a customer who suffered significant losses due to the bookmaker's failure to implement its self-exclusion policy.
Graham Calvert sued the bookmaker William Hill for £2.1 million after the company failed to implement its own self-exclusion policy. Calvert, a successful greyhound trainer and pathological gambler, had closed his William Hill account and requested that it not be reopened, but he was allowed to continue betting two weeks later.
Despite Calvert's requests and use of self-exclusion procedures, William Hill did not effectively prevent him from gambling, and he incurred significant losses amounting to £2.1 million between June and December 2006. The judge found that William Hill had failed in its duty of care to Calvert, and there were noted significant structural weaknesses in the company's internal arrangements.
However, Calvert's claim for the £2,052,972.18 he lost was dismissed on the grounds that he would have likely incurred similar losses with another bookmaker, as he continued gambling with other companies even when his William Hill accounts were closed. Additionally, an additional personal injury claim for damages also failed.
This case highlights the importance of bookmakers implementing and enforcing responsible gambling policies, such as self-exclusion, to protect customers from the potential harms associated with excessive gambling.
Graham Calvert sued the bookmaker William Hill for £2.1 million after the company failed to implement its own self-exclusion policy. Calvert, a successful greyhound trainer and pathological gambler, had closed his William Hill account and requested that it not be reopened, but he was allowed to continue betting two weeks later.
Despite Calvert's requests and use of self-exclusion procedures, William Hill did not effectively prevent him from gambling, and he incurred significant losses amounting to £2.1 million between June and December 2006. The judge found that William Hill had failed in its duty of care to Calvert, and there were noted significant structural weaknesses in the company's internal arrangements.
However, Calvert's claim for the £2,052,972.18 he lost was dismissed on the grounds that he would have likely incurred similar losses with another bookmaker, as he continued gambling with other companies even when his William Hill accounts were closed. Additionally, an additional personal injury claim for damages also failed.
This case highlights the importance of bookmakers implementing and enforcing responsible gambling policies, such as self-exclusion, to protect customers from the potential harms associated with excessive gambling.
