Over-concentration on causation element

A pathological gambler was not entitled to damages for negligence from a telephone bookmaker which had failed to implement an agreement to prevent him from placing telephone bets. The duty of care undertaken by the bookmaker was to prevent the claimant placing telephone bets with them, not to prevent him gambling altogether. The court could not ignore the fact that the claimant would probably have placed ruinous bets with other bookmakers had he been prevented from gambling with the defendant.