I want ze monies back!!

Requiem4adream

I know there is a gambling forum but i thought this was an interesting piece and had a hypothetical question for poker at the end of it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm

Personally, drawing on my (ahem) rusty knowledge of Tort law, the guy has no chance in succeeding with the claim. However, if he did succeed (again extremely doubtful) it has potentially huge ramifications for poker sites; as they would be deluged with similar claims from degenerates who asked for an account to be closed and argue the site didnt do enough to prevent a new account creation.

El Stuntman

can't see this one getting through either

will be interesting to monitor though

Van Dice

no chance.
otherwise I'm self excluding myself from every betting company and lumping on everything I can find, such a huge freeroll

Goodluck2me

I guess you could argue the same about pubs, and peopel going into them of their own valition, but its simply not the case. The pubs have a duty of care to look after the well-being of their customer, i.e. not to serve drunk people, and to make sure they get home safe, so too should the bookies have a duty to make sure their clientele dont become addicted. imo.

poorbarman

No chance of a return
Graham was an excellent trainer but a poor tipster.Crying about it isnt going to work.

5starpool

Bit of a twit tbh.

I remember there was a thread here a couple of years or more ago about a guy that excluded himself from one of the Irish poker sites I think, or restricted his deposit amount or something, but they let him deposit loads and gamble it away, and I think they gave it back to him as a 'gesture' rather than an admission? Not sure of the details, but it is not far off the above. I am 98% sure I remember which site it was, but no point posting the name of it really.

Requiem4adream

goodluck2me wrote: »

I guess you could argue the same about pubs, and peopel going into them of their own valition, but its simply not the case. The pubs have a duty of care to look after the well-being of their customer, i.e. not to serve drunk people, and to make sure they get home safe, so too should the bookies have a duty to make sure their clientele dont become addicted. imo.

Well they could and will argue that they exercised their Duty of Care in banning him.

Plus the onus isnt on the bookies to ensure clients dont get addicted. For example, is there a duty of care on the part of cake makers to ensure their clients dont get fat? It's accepted that as free willed adults we make our own choices. They are legally obliged to take certain steps and do so, going above and beyond this is not in their self interests so they dont do it. It would be unique for a bookie to refuse a bet on the basis that the punter has "lost enough already!!".

prendy

not a chance...not fair on the rest of the gamblers in the world if he gets all his bets back just because he had no self control.

HoLLLLLaments

i think it will come down to the fact that he opened another account after they excluded his original one.

Requiem4adream

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

i think it will come down to the fact that he opened another account after they excluded his original one.

That's not the point. That's an accepted fact. The point of law being argued is they failed to exercise a duty of care to the client in so far as they didnt do enough to prevent the 2nd account creation and/or do enough to close this down.

The action taken will fail, the floodgates argument is glaringly obvious - i.e. if the action succeeded, the precedent would trigger thousands of similar spurious cases.

Ste05

I think he has a decent case TBH.

On the face of it William Hill appear to have been negligent in allowing him to open a second account. They had made a representation to him that they will allow him to avail of their "self-exclusion" option. His reasons for wanting this put in place for 6 months was "'Cos it's just far too easy to gamble."

If I were representing your man, I'd say that William Hill were negligent in the administration of his account. He did not make any attempts to hide his identity or conceal who he was, they knew (or ought reasonably to have known) that this was the same person and because he was under a self-exclusion, should not have been allowed to set-up the account.

Here is what William Hill told him, (according to the link)

"J: Which means you will not be able to open the account with us again within the next six months?
.....
J: "The account will now be closed, you will not be able to open it within the next six months."

Obviously William Hill will undoubtedly have exclusion clauses built into their contracts, and a simple clause such as "I hereby confirm that I do not have another account with William Hill, and I have not availed of the "self-exclusion" option" (very rough obv. but you know what I mean). Would protect them for the second account and against all these losses. But without something in the T&C's for the setting up of the second account to exclude their liability, I think he has a decent case.

If they go down the route of him not being able to control himself or whatever they'll lose, but as I say on the face of it, William Hill look negligent for not having the proper screening and protections put in place to impliment this self-exclusion option they offer. If they can't enforce it, they shouldn't be offering it, IMO it's as simple as that.

Ste05

Also I don't think there is a Floodgate argument here. If people have been allowed to play/bet after the site has agreed a self-exclusion on the account/ person, then they should be held liable, it's quite distinct from any old punter suing for losses he made. They either offer a proper "self-exclusion" option, or don't, but to pretend to be trying to tackle problem gambling and not do it effectively, is just a publicity stunt and they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

But as I say it's so easy to just contract out of it, with a disclosure clause or something similar. Uberrimae Fidei and all that could possibly apply.

As I say if they can't enforce it, they shouldn't be offering it.

Requiem4adream

Ste05 wrote: »

I think he has a decent case TBH.

On the face of it William Hill appear to have been negligent in allowing him to open a second account. They had made a representation to him that they will allow him to avail of their "self-exclusion" option. His reasons for wanting this put in place for 6 months was "'Cos it's just far too easy to gamble."

If I were representing your man, I'd say that William Hill were negligent in the administration of his account. He did not make any attempts to hide his identity or conceal who he was, they knew (or ought reasonably to have known) that this was the same person and because he was under a self-exclusion, should not have been allowed to set-up the account.

Here is what William Hill told him, (according to the link)

"J: Which means you will not be able to open the account with us again within the next six months?
.....
J: "The account will now be closed, you will not be able to open it within the next six months."

Obviously William Hill will undoubtedly have exclusion clauses built into their contracts, and a simple clause such as "I hereby confirm that I do not have another account with William Hill, and I have not availed of the "self-exclusion" option" (very rough obv. but you know what I mean). Would protect them for the second account and against all these losses. But without something in the T&C's for the setting up of the second account to exclude their liability, I think he has a decent case.

If they go down the route of him not being able to control himself or whatever they'll lose, but as I say on the face of it, William Hill look negligent for not having the proper screening and protections put in place to impliment this self-exclusion option they offer. If they can't enforce it, they shouldn't be offering it, IMO it's as simple as that.

As you say they will have 2nd account exclusion clauses. But saving that, is it reasonable to offer the guy double indemnity here? What if he won 6.2 million on the 2nd account, what then?

shrapnel222

i think the main point here is that he opened another account. as ste said, he is not to have 2 accounts with the same bookie, and by doing so was breaking their T&Cs thereby limiting their liability. If he'd reopened the same account, he might have had a case.

there was a slightly similar case where a guy sued a casino in australia, as he'd asked to be banned from the place, but they eventually let him back in and he lost a fortune. I realise the legalities in both cases are very different but just goes to show what degenarates are capable of doing to get more money to feed their addictions.

Goodluck2me

Ste05 wrote: »

"J: Which means you will not be able to open the account with us again within the next six months?
.....
J: "The account will now be closed, you will not be able to open it within the next six months." .

If I was acting for Will HIll I`d say, well we said he couldnt open THAT a/c again, no mention was made of other subsequent a/c`s.

mickc

from the will hill site

34. RESPONSIBLE GAMING/GAMBLING

For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, we provide a voluntary self exclusion policy, which enables You to close Your Account or restrict Your ability to place bets or game on the William Hill Websites for a minimum period of six months. You can ask that the restriction lasts for a longer period.

If You require any information relating to this facility please speak to our customer service team on 0800 085 6296. If we believe that Your gambling will cause You financial or personal difficulties then we reserve the right to close Your Account.

We will use our reasonable endeavours to ensure compliance with self exclusion. However You accept that we have no responsibility or liability whatsoever if You continue gambling and/or seek to use the William Hill Websites and we fail to recognise or determine that You have requested self exclusion in circumstances which are beyond our reasonable control. For example including but not limited to You opening a new account, gambling in an LBO or over the telephone rather than over the internet or using a different name or address.


careful, I think the ink is still wet on that last part!

Goodluck2me

1. Will Hill should give him the money back as a gesture and stick it into his a/c tell him he cant withdraw for 6 months.
2. Open a market on how long it takes him to blow the loot again.
3. Watch the hilarious consequences unfold.
4. Profit.
5. imo.

Ste05

Requiem4adream wrote: »

As you say they will have 2nd account exclusion clauses. But saving that, is it reasonable to offer the guy double indemnity here? What if he won 6.2 million on the 2nd account, what then?

Well we'd have a completely different case then. Simply put, if I was acting for your man, I'd say he ratified the contract as did William Hill by accepting the bets.

shrapnel222 wrote: »

i think the main point here is that he opened another account. as ste said, he is not to have 2 accounts with the same bookie, and by doing so was breaking their T&Cs thereby limiting their liability. If he'd reopened the same account, he might have had a case.

there was a slightly similar case where a guy sued a casino in australia, as he'd asked to be banned from the place, but they eventually let him back in and he lost a fortune. I realise the legalities in both cases are very different but just goes to show what degenarates are capable of doing to get more money to feed their addictions.

As you say they are different cases, but I mentioned above there's no mention in the link that he made any kind of attempt to conceal who he was, he used his own details again, and I assume he used the same deposit methods. Unless he went and set-up a new Bank A/C to conceal his identity so he could deposit this 2.1m or whatever it was, then he would have made attempts to get around his self-exclusion and WH could argue that they are not liable, but there's no mention of that. If he used the same details and same deposit method, then WH would be negligent for allowing him to bet.

Assuming there was no exclusion clause, which obviously opens up another can of worms, and the wording of the clause would need to be gone through.

goodluck2me wrote: »

If I was acting for Will HIll I`d say, well we said he couldnt open THAT a/c again, no mention was made of other subsequent a/c`s.

Yes, but this would have to be argued against, but it would seem that the self exclusion is completely worthless if someone can just re-fill in their details. But that would obviously all be left for evidence at trial, and this isn't the proper time to address this point...

mickc wrote: »

careful, I think the ink is still wet on that last part!

LOL, true, I'd love to know what it said at the time he signed up, obviously it didn't say this...

I should probably lock this thread or move it to Legal Issues, but it is loosely based on Gambling and therefore Poker, so meh, I'll indulge myself somewhat as I'm enjoying it....

Complaints to Feedback or the other mods please.

califano

There was a famous/infamous thread on here a couple years back where a similar situation occured to a poster here against ppp. I think he was a pro player his problem was he loses a larger than needed % through tilt and he told ppp to lower his deposit limit but he was allowed to deposit again and again despite this. He came on here claiming he was able to do so and all hell broke loose. Think he got paid off by ppp but i dont think he's been back posting since.

5starpool

5starpool wrote: »

Bit of a twit tbh.

I remember there was a thread here a couple of years or more ago about a guy that excluded himself from one of the Irish poker sites I think, or restricted his deposit amount or something, but they let him deposit loads and gamble it away, and I think they gave it back to him as a 'gesture' rather than an admission? Not sure of the details, but it is not far off the above. I am 98% sure I remember which site it was, but no point posting the name of it really.

rounders123 wrote: »

There was a famous/infamous thread on here a couple years back where a similar situation occured to a poster here against ppp. I think he was a pro player his problem was he loses a larger than needed % through tilt and he told ppp to lower his deposit limit but he was allowed to deposit again and again despite this. He came on here claiming he was able to do so and all hell broke loose. Think he got paid off by ppp but i dont think he's been back posting since.

What am I, chopped liver?

5starpool

Ste05 wrote: »

I should probably lock this thread or move it to Legal Issues, but it is loosely based on Gambling and therefore Poker, so meh, I'll indulge myself somewhat as I'm enjoying it....

Complaints to Feedback or the other mods please.

Don't move it to gambling as I'd have to keep an eye on it over there too, and I might have to do some of the work myself if any were required.

sickpuppy

The post was by Robert Mcgurk he tilted away cash after upping his deposit limits.
Paddypower accused me of money laundering ideposited in cash and withdrew in neteller a few times with them.
They asked for areason i said im addicted and must i always gamble all my cash away?
They closed all my accounts sports book as well and a cheque for 22 quid arrived and sent me gamblers anonymous phone numbers.
The 22 quid was my account balance.

Goodluck2me

5starpool wrote: »

Don't move it to gambling as I'd have to keep an eye on it over there too, and I might have to do some of the work myself if any were required.

just looking at your mod hats there, wft winter sports? Guinness drinking? poker after dark? thought you`d have modded the hair loss one but alas no.

5starpool

goodluck2me wrote: »

just looking at your mod hats there, wft winter sports? Guinness drinking? poker after dark? thought you`d have modded the hair loss one but alas no.

Cheers Joe, knew I'd have your support on this

I got asked to do Winter Sports and Gambling, and it's better than working so I said why not.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

califano

5starpool wrote: »

What am I, chopped liver?

Sorry about that 5starpool i didnt see your post.

Lloyd!. I brought out on dates some foreign girls and even put up with their innane questions about favourite colours etc. Dunno where you got that idea i just dont let anyone get away with sh!t we dont get away with because of their minority card is all. Dont like whites though.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ste05

goodluck2me wrote: »

just looking at your mod hats there, wft winter sports? Guinness drinking? poker after dark? thought you`d have modded the hair loss one but alas no.

Yup, Dom and Laf are mod whores!! I'm the only pure Poker mod. I'm faithful to the forum.... :cool:

5starpool

Ste05 wrote: »

Yup, Dom and Laf are mod whores!! I'm the only pure Poker mod. I'm faithful to the forum.... :cool:

Noone else trusts you, you mean.

Erm, back on topic?

El Stuntman

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I take it all back. You are a true hero to the fine working people of North Dublin.

I agree - his picture is up in the men's jacks in the Beaumont House, behind the bar in Harry Byrnes and, bizarrely enough, in the Friar Tuck chipper also....a true legend of da working man

Ste05

5starpool wrote: »

Noone else trusts you, you mean.

I'm still desirable... ... other forums want me ... ... I just don't go slutting myself around so it's actually me not choosing them, not the other way around... :eek:

5starpool wrote: »

Erm, back on topic?

Yeah, I suppose so, mods are becoming far too relaxed around here.

Goodluck2me

Ste05 wrote: »

I'm still desirable... ... other forums want me ... ... I just don't go slutting myself around so it's actually me not choosing them, not the other way around... :eek:

Yeah, I suppose so, mods are becoming far too relaxed around here.

apply for a new forum, one for only mods, where you can be the king of the mods. it will be the ultimate conquest.
You darent post in AH after that, you`ll be a constant target for abuse and derision, how enviable the other mods will be!

hotspur

I've seen these claims around the world, there's a very high profile case going on right now in Australia with a guy who lost AU$30m to the Crown Casino in Melbourne. he self excluded and they tempted him back by actually giving him loads of money

I don't recall ever seeing one of these claims for money back work. Where they do tend to work is when the gambling outfit is trying to recoup gambling debts from the gambling addict. The judges tend to be more sympathetic then and they can get off the hook; its mostly American cases I'm thinking off there, though there was a big one in the UK last year where some Syrian gambler got off with a £2m debt to a casino (he dishonoured a cheque) because the casino took so long in looking for it that it was deemed by the court of appeal to constitute credit - which is illegal.

This current case will be very interesting, unfortunately it predates the coming into force of the current gambling act in Britain which lays down rules and regulations relating to responsible gambling including an extensive section on self exclusion. A wide range of enforcement penalties can be applied under this legislation, however this would still not mean that he would necessarily win his civil case.

The thinking among international experts on best practice relating to self-exclusion policies is that they ought not to have penalties attached to them for failure. The reason for this is simple, it is up to the gambling providers to promote the self-exclusion option, are they really likely to do that if it could lead to financial penalties in the future? No they wouldn't.

Gambling providers ought to have a duty of care, or at least pretend that they care while really making amends by funding research, education and treatment. Why are people happy that gambling providers make a huge % of their profit preying on problem gamblers all the time, but get up in arms when they fail to follow through on a token effort of social responsibility with their self-exclusion failures. It's a red herring.

Oh and as for the point relating to poker in the op, Finland is planning on introducing a law allowing online poker players in the country to claim back losses from sites. It's their way of getting the sites to disallow Finns from playing.

dacman

Will Hill are going to know this guy well and when he closed his account all the top guys in William hill would have known about it as he is probably paying all there wages and more importantly there yearly bonuses.When he opened a new account in his own name and placed such a huge bet on golf alarm bells should have been sent off in william hill as a bet this big would take clearance id presume. All the traders would see this massive bet and know straight away that it was there old friend betting again. Now if will hilll were responsible they shouldnt have allowed this bet but they were probably delighted that one of there biggest loosers was gambling with them again so they let it ride in the hope that they would get a bigger annual bonus if he looses say another million.. I think this guy will have a chance with this case as will hill were a bit negelant/greedy here imo

dK1NG

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

i think it will come down to the fact that he opened another account after they excluded his original one.

Requiem4adream wrote: »

That's not the point. That's an accepted fact. The point of law being argued is they failed to exercise a duty of care to the client in so far as they didnt do enough to prevent the 2nd account creation and/or do enough to close this down.

The action taken will fail, the floodgates argument is glaringly obvious - i.e. if the action succeeded, the precedent would trigger thousands of similar spurious cases.

I disagree with R4AD here - the fact that he opened a second account will probably be the determining factor. They fulfilled their duty by excluding him from his original account imo.

"J: Which means you will not be able to open the account with us again within the next six months?
.....
J: "The account will now be closed, you will not be able to open it within the next six months."

The original account was closed, and he was not allowed to use it.


Ste05, how were W.H. negligent here? Can a bookie be expected to vet every client/ potential client to ensure they are not excluded?

(I'm assuming here that he used a different method of depositing).

Ste05 wrote: »

Simply put, if I was acting for your man, I'd say he ratified the contract as did William Hill by accepting the bets.

Is contract law applicable to this type of agreement? Is it not regarded as a "gentleman's agreement"?

mickc wrote: »

from the will hill site

34. RESPONSIBLE GAMING/GAMBLING

For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, we provide a voluntary self exclusion policy, which enables You to close Your Account or restrict Your ability to place bets or game on the William Hill Websites for a minimum period of six months. You can ask that the restriction lasts for a longer period.

If You require any information relating to this facility please speak to our customer service team on 0800 085 6296. If we believe that Your gambling will cause You financial or personal difficulties then we reserve the right to close Your Account.

We will use our reasonable endeavours to ensure compliance with self exclusion. However You accept that we have no responsibility or liability whatsoever if You continue gambling and/or seek to use the William Hill Websites and we fail to recognise or determine that You have requested self exclusion in circumstances which are beyond our reasonable control. For example including but not limited to You opening a new account, gambling in an LBO or over the telephone rather than over the internet or using a different name or address.


careful, I think the ink is still wet on that last part!

I'd be interested in reading the original verison of this!

dacman wrote: »

Will Hill are going to know this guy well and when he closed his account all the top guys in William hill would have known about it as he is probably paying all there wages and more importantly there yearly bonuses.When he opened a new account in his own name and placed such a huge bet on golf alarm bells should have been sent off in william hill as a bet this big would take clearance id presume. All the traders would see this massive bet and know straight away that it was there old friend betting again.

Arguably, this could change things, but I would still be of the opinion that they done what they said they would (ie not allow him bet under the a/c he initially had) and, legally, will not be held liable.

Ste05

dK1NG wrote: »

Ste05, how were W.H. negligent here? Can a bookie be expected to vet every client/ potential client to ensure they are not excluded?

(I'm assuming here that he used a different method of depositing).

By negligently administering any vetting procedures they may have had in place to fulfill their obligations under this "self-exclusion", or by offering this "self-exclusion" and failing to put in place the necessary vetting procedures. He shouldn't have been allowed to open this second account. Party Poker and all the other Poker rooms can do it very easily, and so it is definitely possible, and therefore Will Hill, if they offer this service, must carry it out properly.

If a bookies (or any company) offers a service, then they must carry out that service with reasonable care. If they do not have the procedures in place to properly offer a service then it shouldn't be offered. If they knowingly allowed him to gamble even though they agreed to a "self-exclusion", then again they could be liable.

Also, I'm not assuming that he used a different method of depositing. It says nothing about him concealing his identity in any way in the News Article.

"Can a bookie be expected to vet every client/ potential client to ensure they are not excluded?" Also - yes if they offer an exclusion service. They will already have procedures in place to prevent multi-accounts (I assume these are not allowed for money laundering purposes ).

dK1NG wrote: »

Is contract law applicable to this type of agreement? Is it not regarded as a "gentleman's agreement"?

Yes, contract law is applicable. These aren't gentleman's agreements, they are contracts for the provision of a service or whatever way they word them to get around the problems associated with contracts for Gambling.

Would you feel safe depositing money into a Poker room or a Gambling Site, if they were holding it as a Gentleman's agreement??

dK1NG wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading the original verison of this!

As would I.

dK1NG wrote: »

Arguably, this could change things, but I would still be of the opinion that they done what they said they would (ie not allow him bet under the a/c he initially had) and, legally, will not be held liable.

This will be the crux of the case really, the judges interpretation of what was agreed between the 2. But I would still argue that if they allow someone to just open a new account with all the same details and not attempt to hide your identity then they should be liable, because they agreed with him to exclude him from their site for a set period of time. I just think this goes one step beyond closing the account and so they should have a higher threshold to meet.

If the person was a threat to the company and he was banned (as opposed to self-excluded) I'd say you could be damn sure if he signed up with all his original details, he wouldn't last 2 minutes.

Goodluck2me

Ste05 wrote: »

Yes, contract law is applicable. These aren't gentleman's agreements, they are contracts for the provision of a service or whatever way they word them to get around the problems associated with contracts for Gambling..

I believe you are wrong here Ste, its not a contract case as the gentleman in question didnt provide any consideration for W.H.`s services, therefore it doesnt fall under the SOGSSA provisions either.
I doubt he has much of a leg to stand on to be honest.

Ste05

I'd say it's all covered under the initial contract between the two. The self-exclusion I would think is contained in that contract. Without it being included in that, I'd agree they have no obligation to him.

Then there is the second contract that needs to be looked at for exclusion and disclosure clauses etc. So IMO, this is more of a contract case then a Tort one, but obviously they'd run both actions simultaneously.

Goodluck2me

Ste05 wrote: »

I'd say it's all covered under the initial contract between the two. The self-exclusion I would think is contained in that contract. Without it being included in that, I'd agree they have no obligation to him.

Then there is the second contract that needs to be looked at for exclusion and disclosure clauses etc. So IMO, this is more of a contract case then a Tort one, but obviously they'd run both actions simultaneously.

What tort do you think they have committed? The duty or care negligence arguement?

If i was looking for loopholes i`d say that in the first contract even if it mentions exclusion periods, they DID enforce it on that a/c i.e. the intitial a/c where the initial contract was formed. the second a/c being opened broke a term of the first contract, therefore rendering it voidable, and so with it all liabilities thereof.

Ste05

goodluck2me wrote: »

What tort do you think they have committed? The duty or care negligence arguement?

Pretty much negligent supervision of the systems in place to enforce this self-exclusion service offered or clause in the contracts or a general failure to have any adequate systems in place at all in the first place. As I say, if they offer the service they should be able to enforce it, or they shouldn't be offering it at all.

goodluck2me wrote: »

If i was looking for loopholes i`d say that in the first contract even if it mentions exclusion periods, they DID enforce it on that a/c i.e. the intitial a/c where the initial contract was formed. the second a/c being opened broke a term of the first contract, therefore rendering it voidable, and so with it all liabilities thereof.

This definitely could be a good argument, I think I mentioned upthread about it will all hinge on the Judges interpretation of what was meant to be excluded, the account or the person. I just think a simple closing of the account for a specified period, would not be enough to meet their obligations. But again it would all depend on the wording. As with all these things, the devils in the details, and unfortunately we don't have the details, but it's fun having the debate.

cooker3

Well he lost, surprise surprise

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7291597.stm

5starpool

Saw that earlier alright. He is saddled with nearly 400k of Will Hills expenses too.

Hitman Actual

Is that the first time someone has been termed a "pathological gambler"? I like it anyway.

I had a massive legal rant coming but I couldn't be bothered really. I am glad my analysis was the same as Mr. Justice Briggs though. Ah Page v Smith, what a case!

Anyhow, if anyone is interested, here is the judgment.

It is a long read. Start at Para. 136 for the legal summation.

Here is the Justice's Postscript for those of you too lazy to read it:

"Standing back for a moment to look at the wood rather than the trees, it is perhaps unsurprising that a negligent failure by a bookmaker in connection with the now officially sanctioned process of self-exclusion failed to cause the problem gambler any measurable loss. The conclusion flows in my judgment naturally from the inherently limited effectiveness of self-exclusion as a remedy for the underlying problem. In the form applied under William Hill's Social Responsibility Policy, sanctioned by the ABB, the RGA and now by the Gambling Commission, the self-exclusion process is designed to operate privately as between a problem gambler and an individual bookmaker. There are no doubt powerful reasons of autonomy and privacy which prevent such a private two party arrangement being either known about, still less acted upon, by any of the individual bookmaker's competitors. Since self-exclusion is a process entered into in recognition of the likelihood that the problem gambler will in future succumb to temptation without external assistance, it seems to me inherently likely that a gambler who has self-excluded with a single bookmaker will, when the temptation to gamble returns in force, simply go elsewhere. A telephone gambling or internet account with a new bookmaker takes a few moments to establish, and there is plenty of competition for the provision for those services.

The self-exclusion procedure forms a main plank in the social responsibility structure which stands as the quid per quo for the modern policy of the encouragement of gambling as an industry and as a leisure activity. The question whether the limited effectiveness of self-exclusion as a remedy for problem gambling undermines the integrity of that public policy bargain is something for the Gambling Commission and Parliament rather than the courts to decide."

-Per Briggs, J Calvert v William Hill Credit [2008] EWHC 454 (Ch)

hotspur

That postscript gives no help in understanding why the case was dismissed. Since I spent a long time reading it I'll give quick Cliff notes about what the decision ultimately came down to:

The judge agreed that in this specific case that William Hill screwed up. Why the case is very specific is because ordinarily if you agree a self-exclusion agreement with them then you sign a document saying they are not legally responsible if it gets messed up. But the guy had not actually signed a self-exclusion agreement because the member of William Hill who closed his account failed to pass the info on for the follow up official self-exclusion agreement. He got disciplined for that.

He agreed that in this specific case WH owed the guy a duty of care, but dismissed the argument that bookmakers generally owe a duty of care to all problem gamblers. He agreed that they were not exempt from that duty of care having legal consequences.

The main point was this - what did the judge think would have happened *if* WH had properly prevented him from opening another telephone account and betting with them?

The guy was suing for economic loss, he was a pathological gambler, and he went busto. The judge decided that even if WH had prevented him from gambling with them via his telephone account he would still probably have indulged his gambling in betting shops (including WH), online, and other bookmakers. So he would still have got worse as a pathological gambler and would still have lost his money.

That bit is interesting because it depended on the other available gambling options. If he had been living on some God forsaken theoretical island without phones or Internet and only one bookies and they messed up like this, they would have had to pay out according to this reasoning.

the most interesting point is that the judge decided that okay he would have lost elsewhere but would it have been at a different rate? You see he had been excluded from other bookmakers, and he claimed to have been frustrated by small betting limits elsewhere (he was betting 10's of thousand per bet and claimed many other bookies were limiting him to amounts like £5k.

The judge decided that he may well have lost at a much slower rate elsewhere had WH prevented him from betting. He also accepted that WH's behaviour may have increased the rate of his descent into pathological gambling. Effectively he accepts that they contributed to the rate of his demise but dismisses the importance of that because the end result of the demise would have been the same. I fundamentally disagree with that thinking and decision.

We are all going to die, WH spraying you with poisonous gas every time you go into their shops to collect a winning bet will expedite your death, but the end result will be the same. Ought they to be held to account legally for that?

More relevantly problem gambling is not necessarily a progressively degenerative disorder. While I have no sympathy for the particular guy in question because he is a lying, cheating, scumbag, problem gamblers like all addicts can and often do spontaneously just stop. Thus the rapidity of the rate of degeneration and loss in a specific case is not as irrelevant as the judge thought to the ultimate outcome. It is possible that had the rate not been expedited by WH's negligence that he would have quit gambling for good by the time he would have reached the depths of psychological and financial despair gambling via smaller amounts over a longer time frame elsewhere.

In general though the judge's points and thinking was excellent.

dK1NG

I havent read the full judgment yet, but this strikes me as somewhat illogical. I'm sure it will make interesting reading, when I get the chance.


Since self-exclusion is a process entered into in recognition of the likelihood that the problem gambler will in future succumb to temptation without external assistance, it seems to me inherently likely that a gambler who has self-excluded with a single bookmaker will, when the temptation to gamble returns in force, simply go elsewhere. A telephone gambling or internet account with a new bookmaker takes a few moments to establish, and there is plenty of competition for the provision for those services.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

rounders123 wrote: »

There was a famous/infamous thread on here a couple years back where a similar situation occured to a poster here against ppp. I think he was a pro player his problem was he loses a larger than needed % through tilt and he told ppp to lower his deposit limit but he was allowed to deposit again and again despite this. He came on here claiming he was able to do so and all hell broke loose. Think he got paid off by ppp but i dont think he's been back posting since.

That was a good thread. Anyone know where it is?

He had set an online deposit limit (£500 afair), but was allowed to ring up and get it changed.

Didn't remember the ending bit. Thought he didn't get a resolution.

Alright Hotspur, no need to get testy, I didn't fancy writing up a quick case note is all. I thought the post-script was interesting ...I did link the judgment.

The judge decided that he may well have lost at a much slower rate elsewhere had WH prevented him from betting. He also accepted that WH's behaviour may have increased the rate of his descent into pathological gambling. Effectively he accepts that they contributed to the rate of his demise but dismisses the importance of that because the end result of the demise would have been the same. I fundamentally disagree with that thinking and decision.

We are all going to die, WH spraying you with poisonous gas every time you go into their shops to collect a winning bet will expedite your death, but the end result will be the same. Ought they to be held to account legally for that?

I disagree with you here Hotspur. Justice Briggs was simply stating that Mr. Calvert was on a path which WH were not in a position to stop. Their actions may have done nothing to slow this process but, even had they slowed it down, the result would have remained the same regardless.

Also your argument cannot stand because otherwise every shop owner would be liable for selling cigarettes and/or alcohol and plainly they are not.

RoundTower

dK1NG wrote: »

it seems to me inherently likely that a gambler who has self-excluded with a single bookmaker will, when the temptation to gamble returns in force, simply go elsewhere.

another reasonable conclusion would be "it is inherently likely that the gambler will self-exclude with other bookmakers and will no longer be able to gamble."

I agree with hotspur I'm glad this guy lost. But it would be good to see bookies in general held to their duty of care for problem gamblers, if only because if they don't there will be much stricter and more arbitrary restrictions forced on them.

mormank

goodluck2me wrote: »

I guess you could argue the same about pubs, and peopel going into them of their own valition, but its simply not the case. The pubs have a duty of care to look after the well-being of their customer, i.e. not to serve drunk people, and to make sure they get home safe, so too should the bookies have a duty to make sure their clientele dont become addicted. imo.

you see, i dont think pubs have any responsibility to ppl, only the serving drunk ppl bit. but even there, its gotta be hard to judge that these days cos places can be so busy etc. i think the responsiblity lies with the customer. if this guys wins this case the precedent is too controversial imo. cant win.

mormank

mormank wrote: »

you see, i dont think pubs have any responsibility to ppl, only the serving drunk ppl bit. but even there, its gotta be hard to judge that these days cos places can be so busy etc. i think the responsiblity lies with the customer. if this guys wins this case the precedent is too controversial imo. cant win.

Didn't win.

Having read the judgment carefully and considered it with other problem areas in tort liability I have come to the preliminary conclusion that the court in this case tried to have its cake and eat it.

They admit liability may exist and they even go so far as to call WH negligent, but the court refuses to extend the tort of negligence to this extent for fear of the precedent it may set.

Ultimately this is not over. There is enough in this judgment for it this area to be re-examined. I think the online gaming industry should take this as a warning from the High Court to get their act together and put better measures in place to deal with this area.

The post-script, by the way Hotspur, did include the very salient comment by Briggs, J that he felt this area was best dealt with by Parliament, essentially issuing a call to that branch of government to look into the area before the High Court is forced to deal with it. I think the gambling industry would do well to move on this very quickly before it is exposed to a more liberal justice than Briggs, J. Given that he did not technically rule out this possible liability it is possible a future court may rule in favour of the plaintiff. This would cause a massive problem for online poker and gambling sites and as such I think we will soon see a shift in the mechanisms put in place by WH, PP, etc for dealing with problem gamblers.