Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd: Unconscionable Conduct and Problem Gambling

Surname 1
Legal Writing & Research Communications Law
Name
Affiliation
Instructor
Date

Surname 2
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd
a) A brief statement of material facts
The appellant in this case- Harry Kakavas was known to have a gambling problem and a
chequered past. His main claim was that he suffered from a pathological impulse which
pushed him to gamble more often. According to the gambling industry, he was commonly
referred to as a ‘high roller’. In the period between June the year 2005 and August 2006, he
lost $20.5 million in a Melbourne Casino while playing baccarat. This casino was under the
operation of Crown Melbourne Limited.
On 6th March 2007, he attempted to recover the loss from Crown Melbourne Limited.
Kakavas issued proceedings against Mr. John Willams, the Crown Company and Mr. Rowen
Craigie. His main basis being that the company had been involved in ‘unconscionable
conduct’ by its employees hence contravening s 51 AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, now
under section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law1.
Further, during the trial, the appellant proposed that he was incited by Crown to gamble at
their Casino knowing very well that he was a problematic gambler by giving him incentives,
like using the company’s corporate jet and also getting rebates on the, loses he incurred.
These claims were dismissed by the judge with instructions for $1 million to be paid by the
appellant as damages to Crown Company as its debts2.
1 Skead, Natalie, Tracey Atkins, and Penny Carruthers. "Analysing Mortgagor Protections in Equity and
Under Statute." (2017).
2 Bigwood, Rick. "Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne LTD; Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavas in the
High Court of Australia." Melb. UL Rev. 37 (2018): 273.

Surname 3
B) History of the proceedings, full citation of prior decision
The first instance court, in this case, is the High Court of Australia with Justice Harper as the
trial judge. The Appellant, in this case, was Harry Kakavas and the respondents being Mr.
John Willams, Mr. Rowen Craigie, and the Crown Melbourne Limited. According to the facts
presented to the high court, Kakavas was known to be a problem gambler, (Bigwood, 2018,
273). The judge also accepted him to be a ‘pathological gambler’. Also, the judge accepted
that Crown had the knowledge of the respondent being a having the condition3. In 1994,
Kakavas received bounced cheques from Crown and this led to the mention of his gambling
problem. As such, the claim that his addiction to gambling did not convince Crown. In the
year 1995, Kakavas decided to take a self-exclusion order. After being imprisoned for fraud
in 1998, Kakavas decided to apply to the Crown so that it could revoke the exclusion order.
By doing this, the judge noted that the application could expressly show how Kakavas did
not have any gambling problems.4 In addition, an examination was done by a psychologist
who ascertained that the problem of gambling had been reduced hence Kakavas ability to
operate as a ‘recreational gambler’. By accepting these facts, Crown also withdrew Kakavas’
license, which was later reinstated in January 2005.
3 Bedi, Rahul. "The Tim carmody affair: Australia's greatest judicial crisis [Book Review]." Ethos:
Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 245 (2017): 61.
4 Toole, David. "Fiduciary obligations: 40th anniversary republication with additional essays [Book
Review]." Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 245 (2017): 60.