'Compulsive gambler' says Star Sports ignored social responsibility as he claims £48,000 losses in court case

The social responsibility a bookmaker has to its customers is set to be examined this week as a self-confessed "compulsive gambler" attempts to recover his betting losses from Star Sports in a case that began in county court on Monday.

Scott O'Brien of Knightsbridge claims Star Sports were aware of his gambling problem and therefore should have restricted his betting activity at the firm's shop in Mayfair between September 14, 2018 and March 30, 2019.

O'Brien is understood to have staked £419,252 over the counter during that time, suffering net losses of £48,859 from his bets. The period in question closed with the claimant staking £111,945 on March 30, for net losses of £53,820 on the day.

O'Brien said those figures did not take into account the money he was staking and losing on betting terminals in the Star Sports shop, although the defence disputes whether he ever used the terminals.

Among the issues set to be examined by the claimant's counsel this week is whether Star Sports complied with the Social Responsibility Code Provisions (SRCP) to its applicable operating licence and, if not, whether the claimant sustained losses as a result.  

On day one of the trial on Monday, O'Brien told the court how he had spent ten months in rehab for his problem gambling between 2002-03 and visited Gamblers Anonymous. He also said that his addiction had previously led him to attempt to take his own life.

O'Brien said he first confessed his gambling problem to Star Sports when he recognised a cashier as a parent from the same school his children attended. Worried she might tell his ex-partner, he said he revealed to cashier Gemma Mehmet that "he had a bit of a problem" and that he did not want his ex-partner to find out, fearing it could restrict him seeing his children if she knew he was gambling.

However, Chris Gillespie, barrister for the defence, disputed O'Brien's recollection of the conversation with Mehmet, telling him, "the real point is that you never told Gemma Mehmet about your gambling problem," and suggesting "this is all nonsense".

Unwittingly, Mehmet, who now lives in Spain, played a big part in proceedings on day one, as the circumstances around her absence from court were deemed to be "in breach of civil procedure rules" by judge Heather Baucher, who said she would permit Mehmet's previous statement to be relied upon for now but, considering Mehmet cannot be cross-examined by the claimant's legal team, what weight could ultimately be given to her statement remained in question.

O'Brien's claim was the focal point on Monday and he came under sustained examination from Gillespie for the defence, who said the claimant liked to make "a great play to how wealthy and well connected he was".    

Among the revelations were O'Brien's former relationship with Claire Caudwell, former partner of billionaire Phones 4U founder John Caudwell, and that he had made £2.2 million when a business in which he was a director sold for £9m. The court also heard how he lost £836,000 in one night at a casino only to make it all back and more during a "purple patch" over the following eight months.

Four days have been set aside at the Central London County Court for the hearing, which continues on Tuesday.

Read these next:

Gambling Commission hit Kindred Group with penalties totalling £7.1 million 

BHA warns MPs affordability checks could be 'financially devastating' for British racing  

Get full access to Members' Club Ultimate Monthly now with 50% off for three months