Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited & Ors

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria in a dispute between Mr. Kakavas and Crown Melbourne Limited and other related entities. Mr. Kakavas, a high-roller gambler, alleged that the casino operators had engaged in unconscionable conduct by allowing him to gamble extensively at their premises, despite knowing he was a problem gambler. He sought to recover substantial losses incurred at the casino.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the casino operators had engaged in unconscionable conduct within the meaning of section 8(2) of the *Australian Consumer Law* (formerly section 51AB of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth)). This required the Court to consider the elements of unconscionable conduct, particularly in the context of a commercial transaction involving a sophisticated gambler, and whether the conduct of the casino operators was such that it was against good conscience by ordinary standards of commercial dealing.

The High Court, by majority, found that the casino operators had not engaged in unconscionable conduct. Their Honours reasoned that Mr. Kakavas was a sophisticated gambler who understood the risks involved in gambling and made a voluntary choice to gamble. The casino operators had not exploited any special disadvantage of Mr. Kakavas, nor had they acted in a way that was against good conscience. The Court distinguished the present case from situations where unconscionable conduct has been found, emphasizing the voluntary nature of Mr. Kakavas's gambling and his awareness of the risks.

The appeal was dismissed.