The claimant sought damages saying that his bookmaker had continued to accept his bets after he had made it known that he was a compulsive gambler.
Held: The bookmaker was not liable for the gambler’s losses when he failed to uphold the agreement not to accept the gambler’s further bets. A bookmaker does not accept responsibility for the gambler’s risks. It was difficult to see how the court could extricate one set of losses from gambling where the gambler might have lost or expected to lose elsewhere.
Sir Anthony May, President, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Etherton
[2008] EWCA Civ 1427, Times 30-Dec-2008, [2009] Ch 330, [2009] 2 WLR 1065
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
See Also – Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd CA 4-Jul-2008
The claimant had begun an appeal against a failure of his claim in negligence against his bookmakers saying that they should not have allowed him to lay bets. The respondents then sought interim orders as to costs which were settled, and now sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Negligence
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.278781
