Gambling Disorder, Financial Loss and Suicide—A Journey to the ‘Outer Reaches’ of the Common Law

Almost as soon as Briggs J opined in Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd (2008) that ‘recognition of a common law duty to protect a problem gambler from self-inflicted gambling losses involves a journey to the outermost reaches of the tort of negligence, to the realm of the truly exceptional’, the legal and technological context of his dictum utterly transformed. The liberalising regime of the Gambling Act 2005 was not in force when the facts of Calvert occurred, and the legislation was itself out of date by the time it was implemented, with the arrival of highly addictive online gambling platforms, smartphones, sophisticated targeted marketing and ubiquitous advertising. Today, gambling disorder is a growing, devastating psychiatric disorder and a major public health problem, with far too many sufferers taking their own lives as a result, while gambling operators commit egregious breaches of licensing conditions and codes of practice intended to protect vulnerable customers. This article considers how the common law should respond, concluding that gambling disorder should no longer languish at the ‘outermost reaches’ of the tort of negligence.