Gambler backs wrong horse (again) after suing bookies for £2m losses

Published on Wednesday 12 March 2008 21:13

A COMPULSIVE gambler who sued his bookmaker after ending up more than £2 million down was on the losing side again yesterday.

A High Court judge ruled that William Hill owed Graham Calvert no duty of care, even though he had asked the firm to stop taking his money under the firm's self-exclusion policy.

Mr Justice Briggs said that, although William Hill did agree to exclude Mr Calvert from phone betting and failed to take reasonable steps to do so, pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin, but over a longer period.

He 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."

The 28-year-old greyhound trainer sued after claiming he lost not only 2.1 million but also his wife, health and livelihood.

Anneliese Day, who represented him at the High Court in London, told the judge at a hearing last month that William Hill should be held liable because it failed to operate its own policy. She said that Mr Calvert, of Houghton-le-Spring, Co Durham, was hoping to establish in law for the first time that bookies did owe a duty of care in such circumstances.

She said the scale of her client's gambling had been "staggering" during periods of mania when he placed huge multiple bets in a few hours. He lost about 347,000 in a single bet by backing the United States to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.

He had agreed a self-exclusion deal with William Hill, but a few months later, in August 2006, he opened a new phone account. For eight days, he lost almost every bet, with his individual stakes ranging between 2,000 and 70,000.

After successfully chasing his losses, Mr Calvert did not stop betting as on previous occasions but carried on gambling, losing 124,000 on one day. By this time, his bank account had been reduced from 400,000 in credit in July 2006 to 12,000 by 17 August – and he lost 10,000 of that on another bet. Mr Calvert said he then began borrowing from friends, gambling an aggregate of 578,900 on 15 September. Five days later, he bet and lost 120,000. The next day, he staked 523,333 and lost most of it.

Miss Day said her client was an accomplished greyhound trainer who ran the family business from a farm. He was once "comfortably well off" and had been involved in gambling for most of his life.

She said his "descent from betting being a hobby to betting being a disorder" appeared to have started when he began gambling by phone. He staked "larger and larger sums of money with increasing frequency and decreasing regard for the consequences".

But Mr Calvert, who was not in court, was told he could take his case to the Court of Appeal.

In his ruling, the judge said by 2000, Mr Calvert had become a skilful and successful gambler – his net winnings averaging 50,000 a year for the next five years.

But his gambling became pathological in May 2006 and, if he had been excluded by William Hill, would have found other avenues to continue large-scale betting.

"Even if deprived of the opportunity to pursue his telephone gambling with William Hill in the second half of 2006, the claimant would ultimately have ruined himself financially, albeit at a slower rate," the judge said.

Mr Justice Briggs added:

"It seems to me inherently likely that a gambler who has self-excluded with a single bookmaker will, when the temptation to gamble returns in force, simply go elsewhere."

HOW HIS LOSSES PILED UP

GRAHAM Calvert agreed a self-exclusion deal with William Hill, but a few months later, in August 2006, he opened a new telephone account and began betting again.

For eight days, he lost almost every bet, with his individual stakes ranging between 2,000 and 70,000.

After successfully chasing his losses, Mr Calvert did not stop betting as on previous occasions but carried on gambling, losing 124,000 on one day. By this time, his bank account had been reduced from 400,000 in credit in July 2006 to 12,000 by 17 August – and he lost 10,000 of that on another bet.

Mr Calvert said he then began borrowing from friends, gambling an aggregate of 578,900 on 15 September.

Five days later, he bet and lost 120,000. The next day, he staked a total of 523,333, and lost most of it.