Full decision now available online at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/454.html
To save a bit of time, these are the salient points.
"This case raises, for the first time in an English court, the question
whether there are any circumstances in which a bookmaker can incur liability
in negligence in respect of the gambling losses of a customer who is, and
who is known by the bookmaker to be, a problem gambler. More specifically,
the question is whether a bookmaker who has, at the customer's request,
undertaken to prohibit the customer from gambling for a specified period,
owes the customer a duty to take reasonable care to enforce that
prohibition, so as to protect the problem gambler from the risk of gambling
losses during the specified period."
"In my judgment John failed to discharge his responsibilities not merely by
failing to pass on the claimant's self-exclusion request to the appropriate
department, but by assuring the claimant, in advance of his having been
contacted by Customer Services, and having signed a self-exclusion
agreement, that he was, there and then, excluded from telephone betting with
William Hill for six months. The claimant was left with the clear impression
(entirely contrary to William Hill's policy and procedures) that he need do
nothing further to obtain self-exclusion.
Both John and Elaine also departed from William Hill's Social Responsibility
Policy and Procedures in the following material respects. First, neither of
them drew to the claimant's attention or provided him with William Hill's
responsible gambling leaflet. Secondly neither of them mentioned or
encouraged him to contact GamCare. Those requirements were imposed upon
staff not merely when a customer clearly indicated that he had a problem
with his gambling, or (which is the same thing) requested self-exclusion,
but also upon the occasion of any account closure request coupled with an
explanation relating to gambling difficulties. As I have recorded, Elaine
appreciated that the claimant's account closure request on 9th May related
to gambling difficulties, and John must plainly have done so as well."
"The claimant became a problem gambler by the beginning of 2006. There was a
marked increase in the size of his stakes during the latter part of 2005
which he attributed (and I believe him) to a need to bet larger amounts to
satisfy his desire to obtain what he called a 'buzz'. This satisfies DSM-IV
test (2). I am also satisfied that by the end of 2005 he had become
habituated to concealing the scale of his gambling from his family, albeit
that this is corroborated in documents only in May 2006, when he asked
William Hill not to send any correspondence relating to his gambling to his
home address. This satisfies DSM-IV test (7)."
"In my judgment those facts disclose a sufficient voluntary assumption of
responsibility by William Hill to exclude the claimant from telephone
gambling with the company for six months to give rise to a duty to take care
to implement that exclusion, subject to the application of the three stage
test, and the cross-check of incrementalism. In short, faced with a request
for help from a person of some (albeit uncertain) vulnerability, William
Hill chose to undertake to do that which was requested, without any
disclaimer of legal responsibility."
"In the light of the facts as I have described them, the breach of duty
issue is straightforward. John's failure to implement the self-exclusion
arrangement which he had made on the telephone with the claimant was plainly
careless, and it was not suggested that William Hill is otherwise than
responsible for it."
"But the real question is whether, had he signed a self-exclusion agreement,
he would have been excluded from gambling by William Hill thereafter, and if
so for how long, and from what form of gambling."
"I consider it on balance less than probable that, had the claimant signed a
self-exclusion agreement, he would also have been prohibited by William Hill
from gambling at its betting offices or, had he attempted it, from internet
gambling with William Hill. The possibility arises because of the closeness
with which his betting activity was monitored by Betting Control, whose
jurisdiction necessarily extended to betting shops and all forms of gambling
offered by William Hill, so as to provide effective protection against risk.
But William Hill's procedures required exclusion from gambling at betting
offices to be separately arranged, and it did not follow from a Vet Code 91
notice being placed on a telephone betting account that the customer had
also self excluded from betting offices, or even that he wished to do so.
But in that respect his exclusion would in any event have gone beyond the
scope of William Hill's duty of care. On the narrow basis upon which I have
found a duty of care to be incurred, it extended only to taking reasonable
care to prevent the claimant from gambling with William Hill on the
telephone. Furthermore, I am not at all persuaded that, if advised of the
opportunity to do so, the claimant would have taken steps to exclude himself
from betting offices, not least because (rightly or wrongly) he regarded
telephone betting as exposing him to particular vulnerability by reason of
its disassociation from the handling of hard cash."
"My conclusions are as follows. First, the only bookmaker other than William
Hill which has, after inquiry of all of them, confirmed that the claimant
closed his account on the basis that it be not reopened is Stan James. Both
Pagebet's and Ladbrokes' responses suggest otherwise. Secondly, I consider
that the claimant exaggerated the degree of the restrictions which he
claimed to have encountered in seeking to place bets otherwise than with
William Hill after June 2006.
Thirdly I consider that, had he been excluded from telephone betting by
William Hill in the second half of 2006, he would have sought other avenues
for large scale betting, whether on the telephone or on the internet, and
would have continued his gambling, albeit on a lesser daily scale than that
in which he indulged with William Hill. Fourthly, I am satisfied on the
balance of probabilities that, even if deprived of the opportunity to pursue
his telephone gambling with William Hill in the second half of 2006, the
claimant would ultimately have ruined himself financially, albeit at a
slower rate because of the reduced scale of gambling which would have been
available to him. The actual rate at which his alternative route would have
led to his ruin must remain a matter of speculation, but it is sufficient
for present purposes for me to conclude, as I do, that he would have ruined
himself by the end of 2007."
"It follows that the claimant's case entirely fails upon the ground that
William Hill's negligence merely affected the manner in which, and in
particular the rate at which, a pre-existing pathological gambling disorder
caused the financial and social ruin and the psychological harm which form
the basis of his claim, without in any definable way increasing the
aggregate amount of either form of harm."
|