Tony Coles from Jeffrey Green Russell, believes the case will hinge on William Hill’s self-exclusion policy and whether the company “has taken on an obligation that is enforceable through the courts as a negligence case.” He believes the Gambling Act of 2005, “firmed up a lot of these issues” though the case dates to before the act came into force in September last year.

“There have been a number of similar cases in America: a lot of casinos offer self-exclusion programmes and cases have tested what happens when a casino messes up and allows a person back in to gamble, and what happens when the gambler says he no longer wishes to be self-excluded…and what happens when people have masqueraded as someone else to get round a self-exclusion that they or more usually their family have put in place.

“Negligence is the way to argue this case and I think the judge will certainly listen to Mr Calvert. It depends rather a lot on the facts. How careful were William Hill, did he really self-exclude himself, and did he go out of his way to get round it?”

Adrian Barr-Smith, a partner at Denton Wilde Sapte believes the case hinges on the fact that Mr Calvert was allegedly able to open a new account with William Hill during the six month period in which he was supposed to be self-excluded from gambling with the bookmaker. “"Bookmakers appear to have a duty of care to problem gamblers, but the duty of care owed to a credit customer is possibly of a different level, the credit customer is making a major commitment, they are a custodian of his cash, like a bank. That’s a higher duty of care it seems to me than just your casual punter who walks in off the street.

“The tricky bit is that his claim is not just about the new credit betting account….He also claims he went in with sacks of cash to place bets. That’s not credit betting. You are going in and betting over the counter.”

Mr Barr-Smith notes that in the ‘Particulars of Claim’ notice presented to the High Court, Mr Calvert’s lawyers say the self-exclusion policy applies to both the reopening of accounts and “any more bets” placed with the bookmaker. He also notes their argument that according to the Association of British Bookmakers, once a gambler admits a problem, responsibility to exercise a duty of care lies with the bookmaker.

“It will be very interesting to see William Hill’s response,” he says.

Jason Chess, a partner at Wiggin and Co agrees that much will hinge on the distinction between Mr Calvert placing bets through a new credit account and his bets made over the counter. “Under the licensing regulations you have to offer punters the right to exclude themselves from gambling. If someone self-excludes you have to take what steps you can to prevent them from gambling. Keep a record of credit card number, email and all the rest. If he has done that and then come back with the same name and credit card then you would have expected them to weed him out.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone would have self-excluded with William Hill and that William Hill then ignored their own procedures. They are the Tesco of the betting world. It would be interesting to know just how this thing went so badly wrong. It’s the ultimate nightmare that all modern gambling legislation is designed to prevent.

Matthew Pugh, a dispute resolution specialist at Clarion Solicitors in Leeds said; “Although William Hill do have a self exclusion policy, I would be surprised if the court rules in favour of Mr Calvert as this could open the flood gates to similar claims by others with gambling habits.

“Regardless of the outcome, the court is likely to look closely at the extent of any duty of care owed by gambling institutions to customers with known gambling problem. Even if Mr Calvert is unsuccessful, this could have far reaching consequences for the industry.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads