Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:30

From: Charles Mitchell

Subject: Self-harming claimants

Following on from the recent discussion of Corr, group members may also be interested in Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008] EWHC 454 (Ch) where Briggs J has declined to make a bookmaker liable for the economic loss suffered by a compulsive gambler who placed bets with them. On the facts a duty of care was owed (some interesting discussion of similar Australian cases) and the duty breached, but the claim failed on causation: the defendant only owed a duty to take care to ensure that the claimant implemented a self-exclusion arrangement, and even if this had been done, the claimant would have gone to another bookmaker and lost all his money there instead. I'm sure that David Cheifetz will relish the judge's comment at para 196 that 'However unsatisfactory this may be to philosophers and legal academics, causation is, as applied by the courts, ultimately a matter of common sense'. So that's alright then.

--
Charles Mitchell

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>