Study Notes
Key Case | Calvert v William Hill (2009) | Negligence - Damage - But For Test
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 5 Oct 2020
Where it is proved that the claimant would have suffered the harm or loss anyway, but for the defendant’s actions, factual causation is not proved and the defendant will not be liable.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Calvert – an addictive gambler
Defendant: William Hill - bookmakers
Facts: The claimant was a pathological and addictive gambler. Following excessive telephone gambling with William Hill, for the second time the claimant asked that his account be closed and not re-opened. It was not properly closed and as a result the claimant continued to gamble and lost in excess of £2million, he sought this money in damages from the defendants upon the basis that they were negligent in not closing his account and thus allowing his continued gambling.
Outcome: Not liable
Legal principle: The defendants were not liable, because the nature of the claimant’s addictive gambling meant that he would have lost the money via other means of gambling, irrelevant of the defendant’s actions.