Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25

The appellant's pathological gambling did not constitute a special disadvantage impeding his ability to make rational decisions while dealing with Crown Melbourne Limited, nor was Crown sufficiently aware of any such disadvantage to render its conduct unconscientious. Crown neither exploited the appellant's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Harry Kakavas; Respondent: Crown Melbourne Limited; Respondent: John Williams; Respondent: Rowen Craigie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Conduct, Pathological Gambling, Interstate Exclusion Order, Special Disadvantage
Equity Unconscionable Conduct Pathological Gambling Interstate Exclusion Order Special Disadvantage

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Kakavas

Appellant

Crown Melbourne Limited

Respondent

John Williams

Respondent

Rowen Craigie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's gambling transactions with Crown Melbourne Limited were affected by unconscionable dealing
  2. 2 Whether the appellant suffered from a special disadvantage making him susceptible to exploitation
  3. 3 Whether Crown Melbourne Limited had sufficient knowledge of any special disadvantage

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's pathological gambling did not constitute a special disadvantage impeding his ability to make rational decisions while dealing with Crown Melbourne Limited, nor was Crown sufficiently aware of any such disadvantage to render its conduct unconscientious. Crown neither exploited the appellant's condition nor acted with actual or wilful ignorance, and the statutory exclusion order did not amount to a personal disability. Consequently, grounds for equitable relief for unconscionable conduct were not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs