Australia unconscionable dealingvitiating factors

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

(2013) 250 CLR 392

JurisdictionAustralia

CourtHigh Court of Australia

Year2013

StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

Equitable relief for unconscionable dealing requires a special disadvantage of which the stronger party had actual (constructive is insufficient) knowledge and which it then exploited or victimised; a casino's general awareness that a patron gambles heavily is not enough.

Area of Law

trusts

Related Cases

Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (2012) 200 FCR 296; [2012] FCAFC 6

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd