Gambling debts

Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd CA TLR 30 December; NLJ 2 & 9 January p36

The claimant was a compulsive gambler whose condition was becoming pathological. He had a telephone account with the defendants, who together with other bookmakers offered addictive gamblers a self-exclusion agreement. The gambler could request closure of his account and the bookmaker would agree not to accept his telephone debts for six months. The parties entered into such an agreement, but because of a failure in its internal systems the defendant failed to implement it, as a consequence of which the claimant lost over £2m in bets. Although the defendant was in breach of the limited and particular duty to take reasonable care to prevent the claimant gambling with them on the telephone for six months, the judge held this had not caused the claimant any loss, because he would probably have ruined himself with other bookmakers if prevented from betting with the defendant. To award damages would fly in the face of common sense. On appeal, it was contended that the judge’s resort to common sense was misplaced because: (a) an appeal to common sense is a judicial excuse for not undertaking a tight process of reasoning; and (b) common sense should in the event enable the claimant to succeed. If a person undertook to do something and they failed to do so, common sense dictated that he should be held responsible for the direct consequences.