Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd | |
---|---|
![]() | |
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]
The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states and territories, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.
Tortlaw in Australia consists of both common law and, to a lesser extent, legislation. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract. Torts may be sued upon by private individuals against other private individuals to correct a form of conduct or wrong. A large number of torts exist, and they generally derive their legal status from the common law. Since a court can define an existing tort or even recognise new ones through the common law, tort law is sometimes regarded as limitless and adaptable to modern circumstances.
Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.
Non est factum is a defence in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign." A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. This inequity in power between the parties can vitiate one party's consent as they are unable to freely exercise their independent will.
Crown Perth is a resort and casino located in Burswood, Western Australia, near the Swan River. The resort consists of a casino, a convention centre with meeting rooms, theatre and two ballrooms along with 32 restaurants and bars, a nightclub and recreational facilities. It also features three hotels: the 405-room Crown Metropol Perth, the 291-room Crown Promenade Perth and the 500-room luxury hotel Crown Towers Perth, which was opened in December 2016.
A high roller, also referred to as a whale, is a gambler who consistently wagers large amounts of money. High rollers often receive lavish "comps" from casinos to lure them onto the gambling floors, such as free private jet transfers, limousine use and use of the casinos' best suites. Casinos may also extend credit to a player to continue betting, offer rebates on betting turnover or losses, and salaries of employees may also contain incentive arrangements to bring in high rollers.
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
Crown Resorts Limited is one of Australia's largest gaming and entertainment groups which had, in April 2018, a market capitalisation of just over A$8.7 billion.
Keith William Allan was an Australian solicitor, murdered in a contract killing. He was educated at Northcote High School and the University of Melbourne, where he completed the degree Bachelor of Laws. He practised as a solicitor at Avondale Heights, a western suburb of Melbourne located in the City of Moonee Valley. He was a cousin of Jacinta Allan, a Minister in the Victorian state governments of Steve Bracks, John Brumby and Daniel Andrews. He was also a cousin of former test cricketer Graham Yallop and former Australian rules footballers Ken Turner (Collingwood), Jamie Turner (Collingwood) and Max Oppy (Richmond).
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which the legal issue of unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education is examined and the implications as to the imbalance in bargaining power are considered.
Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:
... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.
Crown Sydney is a casino and hotel that is currently topped out in Barangaroo, Sydney, Australia. When it opens in 2020, it will be the second legal casino in Sydney, the other being The Star. However, unlike The Star, Crown Sydney's casino will only operate with VIP membership restrictions. With 75 floors and a height of 271.3 m (890 ft), it will become the city's tallest building, surpassing Chifley Tower and excluding Sydney Tower, an observation tower.
Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.
Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.
![]() | This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |