Calvert v William Hill [2008] EWHC 454
In Calvert v William Hill the court considered whether
a compulsive gambler could recover damages from a bookmaker who
knew that he had an addiction. Mr Calvert lost over £2 million to
William Hill over a 6 month period in 2006. On one day he made 20
separate bets of £20,000 on horses. He also put £347,000 on the US
to win the Ryder Cup. Mr Calvert had entered into a voluntary
self-exclusion agreement which should have prevented him from
placing such bets.
The court examined whether William Hill owed a duty of care to
Mr Calvert; whether they had breached that duty of care; and lastly
whether any such breach had caused harm to Mr Calvert.
The court refused to find that the bookmakers owed a duty of
care to its customers as a whole. However as a result of the
self-exclusion agreement they had assumed a duty to Mr Calvert.
This conclusion was based on the fact that, 'both financial and
psychiatric harm from a failure of the self exclusion process is
sufficiently foreseeable… There is no risk of indeterminate
liability to an indeterminate class…' Further, there was no reason
why it would be unfair for a bookmaker to owe a duty of care, where
a specific request had been made to exclude an individual.
It followed that William Hill had breached its duty of care to
Mr Calvert in failing to fulfil its promise of self-exclusion.
However on the question as to whether the breach caused harm, the
court found in favour of William Hill.
Determining the issue using the 'but for' test, the court was
unable to find that but for William Hill's breach, Mr Calvert would
not have incurred psychiatric harm and the large amount of debt he
owed. He was still able to gamble via other bookmakers. He had a
serious addiction. As such William Hill's actions were found only
to have accelerated the inevitable outcome so that Mr Calvert's
losses could not be wholly attributable to them.
To compound Mr Calvert's problems, the expenses of the case were
awarded in favour of William Hill - adding another £300,000 to his
debts. While it is clear that 'customers' in all sectors must
continue to be responsible for their own actions the case is
perhaps a warning shot to providers - particularly those who
voluntarily enter agreements to limit their business with certain
customers.
Contributed by Jennifer Gammell