News Litigation High Court backs William Hill in gambling debt claim By The Lawyer 12 March 2008 12:31 14 December 2015 02:09 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Stuart McMaster, Mishcon de Reya, partner 13 March 2008 at 16:54 William Hill v Calvert This is the latest case following the House of Lords decision in Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Barclays Bank Plc to consider when a duty of care will arise in respect of pure economic loss. It is unsurprising that no general duty of care was found to exist towards problem gamblers, although a specific duty of care did arise in the particular circumstances of the case. However, that specific duty of care was of a very limited nature – it extended only to taking reasonable care to prevent the claimant from gambling by telephone, and did not extend to all forms of gambling offered by the defendant. Reply Link Anonymous 14 March 2008 at 03:01 Victory for Common Sense Well I have to say that I am not surprised or saddened by the ruling. I have no sympathy for the guy. If he would have won then the whole country would be suing each other across the pond. Its definitely a victory for common sense. Reply Link Anonymous 23 April 2008 at 17:24 online gaming companies -Beware ! i feel i am in the same predicament only with an online gaming company, yes i may be a “problem gambler” but the fact still remains some companies will continue to take your money even when they know you are, others e.g. ladbrokes close my account when i told them my gambling was getting out of control, i have yet to decide how to proceed in dealing with the said company, am i entitled to free legal advice for this please? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.