Assessment 1: Research essay Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 and the doctrine of precedent. In June 2013, the High Court held that a casino does not owe special duty to its patrons in...

Kakavas vs Crown Melbourne Limited
Name of the Student:
Student ID:
Author’s Note:
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Discussion    4
Actions regarding the Australian Court in implying the doctrine of precedent    4
In the Honor’s view    4
Development of the High Court in this case    5
The exploration of the High Court    7
Conclusion    9
Bibliography    10
Journal    10
Books/Articles    10
Cases    10
Introduction
In the case of Kakavas vs Crown Melboure that was happened past on 5 June 2013, the federal high court of the northern territory has eventually mulled over the petition as equitable principles that is relating to the unconscionable conduct. The federal court has found the condition of a 'quandary' gambler and his transactions with the Crown Melbourne Ltd. At the preliminary level, the substantive sections that have addressed the issue of unconscionable conduct by the respondents constitute a small percentage of judgment. The availability of the equitable relief has been limited by the effective decisions in the instances of the unconscionable behavior. The sphere has been substantially narrowed and the definition of the disability has been previously articulated by Fullagar J in Blomley v Ryan that has been described in the Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio by both of the people named Deane and Mason II.
The Kakavas judgment that was under trial for a number of days was even disturbing in number of stages[footnoteRef:2]. The judges took a very long time to proceed on the cases, as there was a lack of evidences given by. In addition, the unconscionable conduct that has a relation with the circumscription of the equitable principles, the high court in his joint or collective verdict has depicted the a non environmental degree of what has been described as the core subjectivity about the matter of the fact that has been described in the first instance of the petition. The pathway and the invisible outcome of the judgment has mostly said about some degrees that the high court has got influenced by the favor of the applicant as it said to open the further actions of the gamblers against casinos and the other centers where the gambling is promoted. [2: Seear, Kate. "Making addiction, making gender: A feminist performativity analysis of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited." Australian Feminist Law Journal 41, no. 1 (2015): 65-85.]
Discussion
Actions regarding the Australian Court in implying the doctrine of precedent
The Australian High Court has unanimously dismissed the case of Kakavas from the Victorian court of appeal on 5 June 2013. Victorian Court gave the verdict as 'Application collectively discarded. There was no unconscientiously intriguing benefit of any unique discrepancies'. The subject matter was solely on the considerable interest[footnoteRef:3]. The Court has related the type of the matter with the ‘unconscionable conduct’ under pursuant to s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This provision and the section have now been restored by section 20 of Australian consumer law Section 51AA provided (relevantly): [3: Dal Pont, Gino. "equity and trusts: Commentary and Materials." (2015).]
A company must not, in traffic or trade, engage in behavior that is unconscionable within the gist of the convention, from time to time, of the states and the Territories.
Section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law (relevantly) provides:
A person must not, in trade and commerce, engage in conduct that is in unconscionable within the meaning of the unwritten law, from time to time.
In the past, there was a identical case like Young JA (Allsop P and Hodgson JA agreeing), who have abandoned a capitulation due to the invariable biased inspiration of the defendant, which was detrimental issue with relation to an unconscionability claim. The Australian Court did not integrate much on the way as the precedent was gathering one by one. They have taken into the account that whether a person is prejudiced motives are pure or not. Nonetheless, it was being held to be as performing like unconscionably. The court have not cited upon any individual authority. However, when one picks a case such as Bridgewater v Leahy, one can definitely match out the comparison with what the key arbitrator has demonstrated and had given the current compliance.
In the Honor’s view
There are some alike circumstances where a individual who had no presumed objective of acting any kind of misdeed during committing crime. It might still get accused as a guilty person I front of the court on the grounds of the unconscientiously conduct if the person admits the advantage of ‘the benefit of an extravagant haggle by an uninformed person performing without autonomous advise which cannot be revealed to be fair’.
The apparent decisions of the...