WILL HILL WINS GBP 2 MILL PROBLEM ONLINE GAMBLING CASE

14 March 2008

And 28 year old has to pay GBP 336 000 in legal costs


28 year old compulsive gambler Graham Calvert, who took UK bookie group William Hill plc to court in the hope of recovering GBP 2 million in gambling losses (see previous InfoPowa report) finds himself in even deeper financial trouble this week having lost his case, and been ordered to pay GBP 336 000 in legal costs.

Greyhound trainer Calvert from Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, claimed that Will Hill failed in its "duty of care". But Mr Justice Briggs ruled on Wednesday that the gambling company was not liable for the losses. And he ordered Calvert, who has borrowed money to fight the case, to pay about GBP 336 000 in legal costs to the firm.

The judge said he would only pay 80 percent of the estimated GBP 420 000 bookmaker's costs after the late disclosure of key evidence. Judge Briggs ruled that although the company failed to take "reasonable steps" to stop Calvert from telephone gambling, his "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."

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 Calvert to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling about GBP 3.5 million between June and December 2006. During this period he lost a total of GBP 2.1 million.

The company denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held legally liable for 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 refused Calvert permission to appeal, although he will be able to take his case directly to the Court of Appeal.

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa