Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited and Ors

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited and Ors*. The dispute concerned the appellant, Mr. Kakavas, a compulsive gambler, who sought to recover substantial losses incurred at the respondent casino's gaming tables. Mr. Kakavas alleged that the casino had engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* (Cth) (ASIC Act), and that it had breached its duty of care.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the casino's conduct in allowing Mr. Kakavas to gamble and incur significant losses, despite knowing of his compulsive gambling, constituted unconscionable conduct under the ACL and ASIC Act, and whether the casino owed Mr. Kakavas a duty of care to protect him from his own gambling. The court also considered whether the casino's conduct was unconscionable at common law.

The High Court, by majority, held that the casino's conduct did not amount to unconscionable conduct under the ACL or ASIC Act. The court reasoned that while the casino was aware of Mr. Kakavas's gambling problem, this knowledge alone did not render its conduct unconscionable. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions on unconscionable conduct require more than mere exploitation of a weakness; they necessitate conduct that is oppressive or unfairly burdensome. The court further found that the casino did not owe Mr. Kakavas a duty of care to prevent him from gambling, as this would impose an unreasonable burden on the casino and interfere with individual autonomy. The common law claim for unconscionability was also dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed.