Court rules against compensation claim from Hills gambler.

Byline: Rodney Masters

A COMPULSIVE gambler who frittered away more than pounds 2 million lost again yesterday when a high court judge ruled against his claim for compensation and damages from William Hill, writes Rodney Masters.

Mr Justice Briggs said that the bookmakers owed former greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, no duty of care, even though he asked them to stop taking his money under William Hill's own self-exclusion policy.

The judge added that, although Hills did agree to exclude Calvert from telephone gambling and failed to take reasonable steps to do so, pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin, but over a longer period of time.

He ordered Mr Calvert to pay pounds 175,000 interim costs to the firm, but the payment is on hold pending an appeal. The judge said he would pay only 80 per cent of the estimated pounds 420,000 bookmaker costs after the late disclosure of key evidence from Hills.

Calvert, from Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne and Wear, sued the bookmaker after he lost not only his money but also his wife, health and livelihood. He lost around pounds 347,000 in one bet alone when he backed the US to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.

Giving his verdict yesterday, Judge Briggs said that by the year 2000 Calvert had become a skilful and successful gambler - his net winnings averaging pounds 50,000 a year for the next five years.

"From 2004 onwards the claimant's gambling began to extend beyond greyhounds, first to horses and later to a range of sporting events, including football and golf. His main reason for doing so was because his growing success as a trainer of, and gambler on, greyhounds led bookmakers increasingly to place restrictions on his betting."

Calvert agreed a self-exclusion deal with Hills but a few months later, in August 2006, he opened a new telephone account and began betting again. For eight days, almost every bet lost, with individual stakes ranging from pounds 2,000 to pounds 70,000. After successfully chasing his losses, he did not stop betting, as on previous occasions, but carried on gambling, losing pounds 124,000 in one day.

By this time, his bank account was reduced from pounds 400,000 in July to pounds 12,000 by August 17, pounds 10,000 of which he lost on another bet.

Calvert had said he then began borrowing from friends, betting an aggregate of pounds 578,900 on September 15. On September 20 he bet and lost pounds 120,000. The next day he staked a total of pounds 523,333, losing most of it.

The judge said that his gambling was not just driven by "the buzz" he got from it but also by the fact that his personal and business lifestyle had come to depend upon his gambling profits. Calvert, who was not in court yesterday, was granted permission to take his case to the Court of Appeal.

Hills spokesman David Hood said the verdict was a victory for common sense.

He said: "We stated from the outset that there was no case to answer to Mr Calvert and that no duty of care was owed to him in this instance. During the trial Mr Calvert withdrew the allegations that he had been manipulated or enticed to bet. We, along with the industry, believe that counselling is best offered by those qualified to provide it."