European Gaming Lawyer magazine Spring 2016 | Page 25
even in the absence of a request for it. A
bookmaker cannot be expected to recognise
a pathological gambler, which is essentially
a medical diagnosis, in the ordinary course
of business. The Judge went on:“In my judgment the law should be very
slow to recognise a sufficient proximity
to justify a requirement to take protective
steps to restrain a gambler from
exercising his liberty to gamble on his
own responsibility, where his status as a
problem gambler may mean no more than
that he is experiencing mild and occasional
difficulties of control. Again, I emphasise
that the broad submission advanced by (Mr.
Calvert’s Counsel) assumes a duty of care to
all problem gambler customers, regardless
of whether they seek the bookmakers help.
Such a duty would, in relation to a problem
gambler who did not seek a bookmakers
help, be an invasion of his autonomy,
in relation to an activity for which he is
primarily responsible for the consequences.”
(para. 172)(emphasis added)
So there is no general duty of care.
However, John had led Mr. Calvert to
believe that he was self-excluded, but then
had failed to implement it, and also there
was also no specific disclaimer of liability,
and in the specific circumstances of the
case, the Judge found there was a duty
of care, and William Hill were in breach
of it, but, having thoroughly looked at a
great deal of evidence, the Judge came to
the conclusion that Mr. Calvert would
have carried on gambling wit