Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd
Decided 5 June 2013
Citation(s) [2013] HCA 25; 250 CLR 392
Case history
Prior action(s) Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2009] VSC 559
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2012] VSCA 95
Subsequent action(s) none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court.[1] The matter related to claims that casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem.[2]

Harry Kakavas a known problem gambler who had a gambling turnover of $1.5 billion and losses of $20.5 million claimed Melbourne's Crown Casino had engaged in unconscionable conduct by "luring" him into the casino with incentives and the use of the casino's private jet.[3] In earlier proceedings it had also been claimed that a duty of care was owed by Crown to a patron with a gambling problem[4] and that Crown lured or enticed him into its casino.[5][6]

The High Court, in a joint judgement, approved the observation by the primary judge that "[i]n the absence of a relevant legislative provision, there is no general duty upon a casino to protect gamblers from themselves."[7] The Court found that Mr Kakavas wasn't at a special disadvantage which made him susceptible to exploitation by Crown and was able to make rational decisions in his own interests, including deciding from time to time to refrain from gambling altogether. Crown did not knowingly victimise Mr Kavakas by allowing him to gamble at its casino.[8]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 judgement summary at High Court of Australia Website.
  2. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 at [5].
  3. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 at [3] and [27].
  4. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2009] VSC 559at [436].
  5. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 at [5].
  6. ^ Heath Aston (2013-06-05). "Casino did not exploit man who spent $1.5b, rules High Court". Brisbane Times. 
  7. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 at [26].
  8. ^ Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 at [135].