← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case unconscionabilityduty of care

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

(2013) 250 CLR 392
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2013
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A casino operator's mere knowledge of a patron's pathological gambling does not constitute unconscionable conduct absent deliberate exploitation of that special disadvantage.

Key Principle

unconscionable conduct; problem gambling and special disadvantage; casino operator's awareness of pathological gambling not sufficient without exploitation

Area of Law

trusts

Related Cases

Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85

Prenuptial agreements set aside for unconscionability and undue influence where inequality of bargaining power existed between the parties.

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

A supplier's high-pressure door-to-door sales tactics targeting elderly women constituted unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (2012) 200 FCR 296

FCAFC restated Australian law on knowing/dishonest assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, adopting an objective dishonesty standard based on ordinary decent people.

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