We recognise that it will only be in exceptional cases that gamblers who contend that they have sustained loss as a result of a gambling operator’s breach of duty will bring legal proceedings. It would, almost by definition, be difficult for the losing gambler to fund complex litigation. It may be difficult to find lawyers prepared to conduct such litigation on a contingency basis https://www.acden.com/profile/meierpeterest/profile.
It is likely, therefore, that legal proceedings would only be brought in cases where a very large sum of money had been lost by a problem gambler in circumstances in which the gambling operator’s breach of its regulatory obligations amounted to improper exploitation of the gambler.
We believe therefore that the issues as to the existence and scope of a tortious duty of care that were considered in Calvert may be most satisfactorily addressed by the creation of an action for breach of statutory duty. By way of example, section 138D(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000409 provides: “A contravention by an authorised person of a rule made by the [Financial Conduct Authority] is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.”