This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/wear/7291597.stm
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Gambler loses £2m bookies claim | Gambler loses £2m bookies claim |
| (20 minutes later) | |
| A compulsive gambler has lost his bid at the High Court to force bookmaker William Hill to repay his £2m losses. | A compulsive gambler has lost his bid at the High Court to force bookmaker William Hill to repay his £2m losses. |
| Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, said the company failed in its "duty of care". | Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, said the company failed in its "duty of care". |
| He claimed the company let him place bets after asking it to close his account under a self-exclusion scheme. | He claimed the company let him place bets after asking it to close his account under a self-exclusion scheme. |
| But Mr Justice Briggs ruled on Wednesday that William Hill was not liable for the losses. | But Mr Justice Briggs ruled on Wednesday that William Hill was not liable for the losses. |
| He said that although the company failed to take "reasonable steps" to stop Mr Calvert from telephone gambling, Mr Calvert's pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin. | He said that although the company failed to take "reasonable steps" to stop Mr Calvert from telephone gambling, Mr Calvert's pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin. |
| New accounts | New accounts |
| In summary of his ruling the judge 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." | In summary of his ruling the judge 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." |
| Mr Calvert had also been allowed to seek further compensation after he claimed he had not only lost money but also his wife, health and livelihood. | Mr Calvert had also been allowed to seek further compensation after he claimed he had not only lost money but also his wife, health and livelihood. |
| William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible. | William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible. |
| It was alleged the bookmaker allowed Mr Calvert to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling about £3.5m between June and December 2006. | It was alleged the bookmaker allowed Mr Calvert to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling about £3.5m between June and December 2006. |
| During this period he lost a total of £2.1m. | During this period he lost a total of £2.1m. |
| The company denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses. | The company denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses. |
| David Hood, spokesman for William Hill, said: "We stated from the outset that there was no case to answer to Mr Calvert. | |
| "The judge found that no general duty of care is owed to problem gamblers and that Hills handling of Mr Calvert's calls did not cause his loss." |