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 2 Version 3
Gambler loses £2m bookies claim Gambler loses £2m bookies claim
(30 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.
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 ordered Mr Calvert, who has borrowed money to fight the case, to pay about £336,000 in legal costs to the firm.
New accounts The judge said he would only pay 80% of the estimated £420,000 bookmakers costs after the late disclosure of key evidence.
He ruled 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.
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. New accounts
William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible. Mr Calvert had also sought further compensation after he claimed he had not only lost money but also his wife, health and livelihood.
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. William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible by letting him place bets after asking it to close his account under a self-exclusion scheme.
During this period he lost a total of £2.1m. 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.
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.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.""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."
The judge refused Mr Calvert permission to appeal, although he will be able to take his case directly to the Court of Appeal.