Loser Wants $2.1 Million Back From Will Hill
Published: Thursday, February 14, 2008 Online-Casinos.com
LOSING HIGH ROLLER WANTS $2.1 MILLION RETURNED BY WILL HILL
UK bookie will vigorously oppose legal suit
A 28-year-old high roller with a compulsive gambling tendency is trying to get UK bookie William Hill to return $2.1 million in losses on grounds that the company was negligent in allowing him to play after he had self-excluded himself....despite the fact that he circumvented the system by opening a fresh account.
The BBC reports that although relatively young, Graham Calvert built a substantial financial base for himself whilst a greyhound trainer, earning up to GBP 30 000 a month and stashing away GBP 700 000.
That was before a yen to gamble big cost him his career, family life and business, he contends. One of his more spectacular losses was betting on the 2006 Ryder Cup and getting it wrong....to the tune of GBP 347 000.
Apparently Calvert began gambling at the end of 2005 but says he needed to bet in the thousands to get the buzz.
At one stage he placed up to 20 bets a day at GBP 30 000 a time. But, by his own admission, in what he describes as "rare moments of clarity", he realised it was all getting out of hand and so excluded himself from a number of bookmakers.
Some of them wouldn't let him bet again while others only allowed him maximum bets of a few hundred pounds. But Calvert was a big time gambler so he went in search of other bookmakers to take on his bets. In May 2006 he opened an account with top UK bookie William Hill.
After placing some big bets he closed that account after just a few days, although he chose to re-open it two weeks later.
After another week, following more bets totalling nearly GBP 300 000, he closed the account and requested a self-exclusion, an operator "responsible gambling" measure whereby a problem gambler can have his account closed for six months to "cool down." This, his lawyers say, is a facility provided by bookmakers to help gambling addicts break free of their addiction.
Calvert was told: "You will not be allowed to open it [the closed account] under any circumstances. You will not be allowed to bet over the phone with William Hill."
But two months later, Calvert again started betting with William Hill again by opening a new account, although he used his own name. It was through this account that he placed, and lost, the huge bet on the Ryder Cup.
His downward spiral on the new account continued and Calvert ended up going into William Hill branches with sacks full of cash, using up all his savings and borrowing more than GBP 1 million from business associates.
By the time he finally stopped gambling with William Hill he had made a net loss of just under GBP 2.1 million, the amount he is now claiming against them in a High Court case due to start next week.
Calvert's legal team claim that William Hill were negligent in allowing him to continue to gamble after agreeing that he would be self-excluded and that they should be held responsible for the consequences, but the UK bookie is strongly contesting the claims.
Lawyers for William Hill argue that any individual choosing to place a bet does so as a matter of personal and voluntary choice.
The BBC opines that the case is likely to take a long look at the issue of duty of care. Where does the responsibility of both the gambler and the bookmaker start and finish?
It will be for the court to establish exactly how and why Mr Calvert resumed betting and whether William Hill can be held legally liable for his behaviour.
