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