Gambler allowed to sue betting shop, for allowing him to bet.

[marbleapple]

Common sense prevails.

 

It usually does.

 

It is an interesting case though. 2 key points to note:

 

'In summary of his ruling the judge said: "William Hill's failure to take reasonable care to exclude him from telephone gambling... did not therefore cause Mr Calvert any measurable financial or other loss." ' - I.e. William Hill were in the wrong but were not at fault in this occassion becase the bloke would still have found a way to bet.

 

and also:

 

"The judge found that no general duty of care is owed to problem gamblers and that Hills handling of Mr Calvert's calls did not cause his loss."