Doctrine of Precedent in Australian Law: A Case Study

Running head: DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT
Doctrine of Precedent
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT
According to the case of Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973 262) &
Ors [2013] Hca 25, there is no general duty vested on the part of the casino to protect the
interests of the gamblers. The nature of the decision on the part of the High Court of Australia is
such that it is important for the Northern Territory Supreme Court to follow such decision. It is
evident that the Gaming Control Act 1993 has been implemented by the Northern Territory.
According to the provisions of Section 79A of the Gaming Control Act 1993, it is an offence on
the part of a licensee to contravene the code of practices approved by the Minister. However,
opportunities are there for the development of legislative mechanism for minimizing the risk of
harm. Duty of care is a legal obligation on the part of an individual to avoid harm which could be
foreseeable by any reasonable person of ordinary prudence. In this regard, it is worthwhile to
mention here that, the current position of Australian law is such that, there is no duty of care
owed to the individuals dealing with issues related to gambling and in preventing economic loss
suffered as a result of gambling (Douglas, Atkins and Clift 2015). In gambling cases, the losses
suffered by individuals are purely economic losses which has been difficult on the part of the
Courts to identify as a result of existing policy grounds (Boyle 2015). The Courts have been
reluctant regarding the imposition of liability which could lead to an uncertain amount to a
undefined class of individuals.
The decision of the High Court in Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973
262) & Ors [2013] Hca 25, was a decision regarding the facts of the case. In this case Mr.
Kakavas failed in his part to prove the fact that he was not able to make reasonable decisions in
regard to his personal interest to restrain himself from gambling with Crown. In regard to these
underlying situations with context to gambling transactions, the claim on his part failed.
Therefore, the Northern Territory Supreme Court must follow the ruling of the High Court

2DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT
because the nature of the decision is such that, it contained complete guidance of the facts and
considerations that must be adressed by a Court while determining the course of conduct within
the purview of unwritten law.
In order to overrule a decision of the High Courts, much emphasis has been laid upon the
concept of doctrine of precedent. It is evident that from the very beginning, The High Court of
Australia has attempted to make relevant changes in the application of law by overruling the
decisions of its previous cases (Walpola 2017). However, the decision on the part of the Courts
to overrule its previous decision would depend upon various underlying issues (Saunders and
Stone 2014). For instance, in case of constitutional issues, the decision on the part of the Court
regarding overruling the decision has been mixed. This is due to the unique position of the
interpreter while interpreting the wordings of the constitutional text (Deane and Bozin 2016). In
this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, authorities may find it difficult in overruling
constitutional cases. The authority of the Courts has been different in overruling matters which
involves the constitution and comprises of statutory interpretation.
The doctrine of precedent is a fundamental concept based upon the judicial decision
making in Australia. It is worthwhile to refer here that the general idea governing the doctrine of
precedent is associated with the fact that, in most of the cases, judges while deciding any matter
depends upon past decisions (Saunders and Stone 2015). However, in some cases, judges are
bound to apply the decision of previous cases while deciding the present matter that involves
similar facts and issues (Seear and Fraser 2014). It is noteworthy to mention here that, the
doctrine of precedent in Australia has to cope with a number of questions which can be
categorized as below-