Groppi, T. and Ponthoreau, M.C. Theemployees of Crown never appreciated in an actual or constructive sense that the claimant had aspecial disability that hindered his capacity to choose to gamble with Crown in so far as a chargeof conscience in equity is concerned.The court indicated that constructive notice could not be extended to commercialtransactions. Thus, the rights of the parties in case of such a position of law would be completely dependent on the legal stand of previous decisions. Phone: +61 3 8344 4475 Upon hearing the Appeal presented to it, the High Court, like the previous Courts, found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed it. The support you need will always be offered. Crown did not knowingly victimise Kakavas by allowing him to gamble at its casino. Erasmus L. Before the Court of the First instance, the Appellants main claim was that Crown, its then and former Chief Operating Officers had acted negligently at common law, had acted unconscionably and breach their statutory duties under the Victorian Casino Control Act. Case Analysis. Dr Jeannie Paterson is a Senior Lecturer at Melbourne Law School. Rev.,8, p.130. The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem.. Harry Kakavas - a known problem gambler who had a gambling turnover of $1.5 billion and losses of $20.5 . who was unconscionable conduct. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. unique. The doctrinal method: Incorporating interdisciplinary methods in reforming the law. Date Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25. Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. n this civil case, Mr. Kakavas was a serious gambler who gambled between July 2005 andAugust 2006. In June 2013, the High Court held that a casino does not owe special duty to its patrons in cases where they have a gambling problem. Thus, Kakavas was not suffering from any special disadvantage. Additionally, it may be stated that in such instances the parties whose interests have been hampered would have no recourse and thus they would not be able to avail any remedy (Lupu and Fowler 2013). Lamond, G., 2014. Kakavas claimed Crown engaged in unconscionable conduct. Saunders, C. and Stone, A., 2014. First, the Court addressed itself to the applicability of the doctrine of constructive notice, heavily relied on by the Appellant and held that while the doctrine was applicable in cases relating to priority of property interests, the same could not be extended to pure commercial transactions such as the one between the Appellant and the Respondent. Critical Analysis of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd, Critical Analysis of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) (High, The issue involved in the present case study is whether Crown was involved in, Unconscionable conduct or unconscionability is a doctrine present in contract law which, states that the terms in the contract are so unjust or one sided that one party is favoured towards, the party having better position or power of bargaining such that they are in contradiction with, the good conscience (Goldberger 2016). Critically, the High Court said that a trader in the position of Crown had to have actual knowledge of the disadvantage of a problem gambler such as Kakavas. View sample3-Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd.docx from KJKJK 000 at Australian Catholic University. When it comes to submitting the finished essays, we are never late. The Court, in a joint judgement, upheld the decision of the primary judge stating "[i]n the absence of a relevant legislative provision, there is no general duty upon a casino to protect gamblers from themselves.. The case Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973 262) & Ors [2013] Hca 25is specifically significant as it discusses a legal debate that ranges from the very source of law to the power of the judiciary to interpret the same (Lamond 2014). 1 Freckelton, I, Pathological Gambling and Civil Actions for Unconscionability: Lessons from the Kakavas Litigation,Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, (2013) 20(4): 479-491. make rational judgment in his own interest to avoid gambling with the Crown. My Assignment Help. The Appellant, Harry Kakavas, according to the High Court of Australia, a pathological gambler, who had a serious gambling problem for many years.In the period between June 2005 and August 2006, he spent a total of $20.5 million in playing baccarat at a casino located in Melbourne, which was owned and operated by the Respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd (hereinafter, Crown). In considering a lower courts authority to act in a particular way that goes against a precedent it is worth mentioning that the courts would take into account a certain degree of reasonableness when applying such a precedent. We value your needs and do all that is possible to fit your budget. The High Court (Chief Justice French, Justices Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane) was unanimous in rejecting the appeal. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. Date: 05 June 2013. Recent Documents On the question of whether the Kakavis suffered a special disability, necessary for a finding of unconscionable conduct, the Court accepted the factual findings of the trial judge that Kakavis was a problem (even pathological) gambler. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd case note - Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) - StuDocu Ask an Expert Sign in Register Sign in Register Home Ask an Expert New My Library Courses You don't have any courses yet. It is particularly difficult to overrule constitutional precedents as the courts are conferred their powers through the constitution and thus the same needs to be interpreted in the same light. Analysis of the High Court Decision in the Kakavas LitigationThe case of Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne Limited restricts the potential of a gambler tosue gambling houses and bookmakers in equity to a patron for unconscionable exploitation oftheir vulnerabilities. Leave this field blank. Criminal law assignment kakavas crown melbourne ltd 2013 hca 25 june 2013) facts kakavas crown melbourne ltd hca 25 showcase of the high court decision making My Assignment Help. The court did not consider that Kakavas was at a special disability vis--vis Crown because it was he who made the decision to enter a gaming venue and, moreover, because he was able to refrain from gambling at Crown when he chose to do so. An influential factor that was that gambling was by its very nature a risky transaction for both of the parties concerned. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/bu206-business-law/kakavas-v-crown-melbourne.html[Accessed 04 March 2023]. What would be required for this decision to be overruled? Reg No: HE415945, Copyright 2023 MyAssignmenthelp.com. Lupu, Y. and Fowler, J.H., 2013. However, thecourt unanimously rejected the argument by Kakavas that the Crown should be deemed to havereceived notice if it had investigated as a reasonable man would have done in the situation. Hence it also involves duress as well as undue. Melb. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Case Page Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. In a unanimous decision the High Court in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 rejected an appeal by Harry Kakavas against Crown Casino in equity. The issue as to special disadvantage must be considered as part of the broader question, which is whether the impugned transactions were procured by Crowns taking advantage of an inability on Kakavas part to make worthwhile decisions in his own interests, which inability was sufficiently evident to Crowns employees to render their conduct exploitative [124]. In this case the precedent Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73was discussed and dissented from (Bant 2015). only 1 The Court explained at [161]: Equitable intervention to deprive a party of the benefit of its bargain on the basis that it was procured by unfair exploitation of the weakness of the other party requires proof of a predatory state of mind. being a gambling problem. My Assignment Help, 2021, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/bu206-business-law/kakavas-v-crown-melbourne.html. AGLC3 Citation: Jeannie Marie Paterson and James Ryan, Casino Not Liable for Bets Made by Problem Gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd onOpinions on High (6 August 2013) . These examples (listed at [30]) were: These sorts of case are also likely to be brought under s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law, which, as discussed above, contains a broader prohibition on unconscionable conduct than under the equitable notion considered in Kakavas. The High Court took the opportunity to clarify and tighten the principles associated with Amadio type claims. The court was also guided by the assessment of the primary judge thatKakavas was a natural salesman and negotiator that was robust and confident. theNSW Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to order a punitive monetary award for breach Question: In Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) the High Court appears tohave restricted the application of the equitable principles relatingto unconscionable/unconscientious conduct to circumstances where:? Further, he claimed that by permitting and. This effect is considered to be an absolute economic loss and thus the same dictates that the courts cannot infer the same to be breach of duty of care. Thus in cases of lower courts, this power to overrule judicial precedents does not arise if the judgment was given by a superior court. Concordia L. When seeking equitable intervention their Honours stated the following: The Court regarded it as highly relevant that the activities took place in a commercial context in which ..the unmistakable purpose of each party was to inflict loss upon the other party to the transaction and that there was nothing surreptitious about Crowns conduct [25]. High Court Documents. to receive critical updates and urgent messages ! The present case involved Kakavas, a problem gambler who was the plaintiff in the case. Kakavas appeared to be a successful businessman whose finances were in good shape, and he appeared to be making he own choices about whether and where to gamble. The plaintiff must point to conduct on the part of the defendant, beyond the ordinary conduct of the business, which makes it just to require the defendant to restore the plaintiff to his or her previous position, courts of equity dont stigmatise the ordinary conduct of a lawful activity as a form of victimisation in relation to which the proceeds of that activity must be disgorged, The absence of a reasonable equality of bargaining power by reason of the special disability of one party to a transaction, while not decisive, is important given that the concern which engages the principle is to prevent victimisation of the weaker party by the stronger, it is essential that there should be an unconscientious taking advantage by one party of some disabling condition or circumstance that seriously affects the ability of the other party to make a rational judgment as to his or her own best interests. Kakavas claimed that the Crown hadexploited his gambling problem so that he became a regular visitor and alsoby unconscientiously allowing and encouraging Kakavas to gamble at Crown while the knew or ought to have known that Kakavas would be required to forfeit winnings by virtue of a NSW exclusion order. He then lost an appeal to the Full Court in 2012. He also claimed in the earlier proceedings that the casino had a duty of, care to the patron who had a gambling problem (Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2009] VSC. A self-exclusion order involves the gambler requesting the casino not to admit him to the premises for a period of time. Kakavas presented as a successful businessman able to afford to indulge himself in the high stakes gambling in which he chose to engage, the principle which the appellant invokes, A plaintiff who voluntarily engages in risky business cannot call on equitable principles to be redeemed from the coming home of risks inherent in the business. Now! BU206 Business Law [Internet]. The court undertook a detailed analysis of the principles of unconscionable conduct and special disadvantage. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Case Page Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. Kakavas v Crown [2013] HCA 25 concerned the claim by a so-called high roller gambler, Harry Kakavas, to $20 million dollars while gambling at Crown Casino in Melbourne between 200406. Books You don't have any books yet. All rights reserved. The Court stated that significant weight should be given to the assessment of the primary judge of how Kakavas presented given his finding that he did not present to Crown as a man whose ability to make worthwhile decisions to conserve his interests were adversely affected by his unusually strong interest in gambling [146]. The case revolves around the provisions of Gaming Control Act 1993, specifically the provisions of Section 79A of the act (Komrek 2013). (2021). The principle is not engaged by mere inadvertence, or even indifference, to the circumstances of the other party to an arms length commercial transaction. While that does not mean the principle cannot apply, the Court said, it highlights the practical difficulty of prosecuting such a claim. CASE NOTE KAKAVAS v CROWN MELBOURNE LTD* STILL CURBING UNCONSCIONABILITY: KAKAVAS IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA RICK BIGWOOD This case note explores the merits, or demerits, of the High Court's recent decision in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. That decision appears to be further confirmation of a These positions of law are formulated by the overruling of a judicial precedent which defined the position of law in that matter in the past. The Court highlighted that Kakavis did not present himself as someone incapable of making worthwhile decisions for himself. Section 20 of the ACL provides restrictions on unconscionablity involved in by any, corporation. [2], Harry Kakavas a known problem gambler who had a gambling turnover of $1.5 billion and losses of $20.5 million claimed Melbourne's Crown Casino had engaged in unconscionable conduct by "luring" him into the casino with incentives and the use of the casino's private jet. Oxford University Press. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd - [2013] HCA 25 - 250 CLR 392; 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35 - BarNet Jade. INFS3059 Project Management And Information Systems, MGMT2726 Business Ethics And Sustainability, LHA1004H Research Literacy In Educational Leadership And Policy, ECO600 Economics And Finance For Business, NSG2NCI Nursing Patients With Chronic Illness, NCS1102 Professional Conduct And Communication, FINS5512 Financial Markets And Institutes, HLTH 601 Critical Analysis Of A Health Issue, BMA609 Sales Management And Personal Selling, MGMT20144 Management And Business Context, 3231THS Managing Hosp Service Experiences, HA1022 Principals Of Financial Markets Group Assignment, PUBH6150 Quality And Safety In Health Care, HDS106 Diversity, Disability And Social Inclusion, ISY3001 E-Business Fundamentals And Systems, MBA402 Governance, Ethics, And Sustainability, EPM5500 Fundamentals Of Project Management, HI5019 Strategic Information Systems For Business And Enterprise, BSBSMB404 Undertake Small Business Planning, RES850 Modified 10 Strategic Points Template, NSG2EHP Education In Health Professional Practice, CH6059 Advanced Physical Chemistry Coursework, EDF6530 Introduction To Counselling Across The Lifespan, ECON6000 Economic Principles And Decision Making, ME503 Telecommunication System Engineering, ENG51001 Construction Site Safety And Risk Management, NUST10044 Critical Appraisal Of Qualitative Research, THT2114 Sustainable Operations And Destinations, ITECH7410 Software Engineering Methodologies, ITC105 Communication And Information Management, CP5520 Advanced Databases And Applications, HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics And Social Responsibility, BUACC5937 Information Systems Design And Development For Accountants, PROJMGNT 5004 Risk Assessment And Management, BMA314 Organisational Change And Development, ACCT20076 Foundation Of Management Accounting, COSC2473 Introduction To Computer Systems And Platform Technology. The principles extracted from this case are not novel however the court has clarified and focused the principles. %20Week%201/Robinson_Ludmilla_2013, Majority of the Court of Appeal (Spigelman CJ and Heydon JA; Mason P dissenting) held that Before the Court of the First instance, the Appellants main claim was that Crown, its then and former Chief Operating Officers had acted negligently at common law, had acted unconscionably and breach their statutory duties under the Victorian Casino Control Act. Kakavas claim failed for two reasons. In 2000, he moved to the Gold Coast and established a highly profitable business there. on our behalf so as to guarantee safety of your financial and personal info. In view of its analysis and findings, the High Court dismissed the Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Appeal with costs. This doctrine brings about uniformity in judicial precedents and also ensures that precedents of such value are not disregarded in the next instance (Callander and Clark 2017). M.F.M. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. Jeannie Marie Paterson and James Ryan, 'Casino Not Liable for Bets Made by Problem Gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd ' (6 August 2013). In the same way it can be decided that the parties to the dispute were the Casino and Mr. Kakavas (Saunders and Stone 2014). If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignmenthelp.com then please raise the [See J M Paterson, Knowledge and Neglect in Asset Based Lending: When is it Unconscionable or Unjust to Lend to a Borrower Who Cannot Repay (2009) 20 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 1]. Inadvertence, or indifference, falls short of the victimisation or exploitation with which the principle is concerned. . content removal request. Analysis of the High Court Decision in the Kakavas Litigation. Testimonianze sulla storia della Magistratura italiana (Orazio Abbamonte), Equity and Trusts Problem-solving Structures, Equity and Trust Topic Structures/Outlines, Uni checklist - This took me awhile but was a godsend to keep on top of things, Corporate Financial Decision Making (FNCE20005), Fundamentals of Management Accounting (ACCG200), Database Analysis and Design (INF10002/INF60009), Investments and Portfolio Management (FINC3017), Foundations of Business Analytics (QBUS1040), Nursing in the Australian Healthcare System (NUR1101), Academic Literacies: Learning and Communication Practices (COM10006), Foundations of Nursing Practice 2 (NURS11154), Applications of Functional Anatomy to Physical Education (HB101), Anatomy For Biomedical Science (HUBS1109), Economics for Business Decision Making (BUSS1040), Introducing Quantitative Research (SOCY2339), Lecture notes, lectures 1-3, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 9 Questions and solutions, Summary Principles of Marketing chapters 1-12, Exercises Practice 2012, Questions and answers.pdf, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 5 Questions and solutions, Exam-preparation-notes-case-study-applications-and-summaries-for-both-micro-and-macro, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 15 Questions and solutions, Comparative 7 stages of grieving and the longest memory, Othello Themes - Quote and Analysis Table, PICT2012 Assignment 1 - Policy Memo answer, Week 2 - Attitudes, stereotyping and predjucie, 14449906 Andrew Assessment 2B Written reflection, Farm case where father wanted the business to keep going so gave it to nephew This article related to Australian law is a stub. High Court Judgment. He was also what is known in the industry as a 'high roller'. Book Your Assignment at The Lowest Price In the course of deciding the Appeal, the Court laid down a number of rules. He claimed to suffer from a pathological impulse to gamble. It thus may be inferred here that the doctrine of precedent as it applies within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth is in the hands of courts deciding matters even if the precedent discusses powers of the court being conferred on them (Hutchinson 2015). In establishing the state of mind required to take action on unconscionable conduct,the court used a higher threshold than it had ever done in previous cases by requiring that theclaimant proves the stronger partys predatory state of mind. Rather the trader is said to have constructive knowledge of special disadvantage if she would have known of the special disadvantage had she made reasonable inquiries into the matter. for your referencing. Disclaimer: The reference papers provided by MyAssignmentHelp.com serve as model papers for students Case Information. The very purpose of gambling from each partys point of view is to inflict a loss on the other party. We do not store or share your personal information so you will keep your Reference to foreign precedents by the Australian high court: a matter of method. In here we welcome new clients with open arms and reward the loyalty of our existing clients. equity, in which the High Court held that unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge This would also mean that such a decision would limit the scope of judicial authority in case of overruling precedents. Name. Appeal dismissed. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Copyright 2008/2009 Peter A. Clarke All Rights Reserved. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. At some point, the Appellant was charged and convicted of fraud, which he alleged to have committed so as to fund his gambling behaviors. Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio, is a seminal case in Australian contract law and Start Earning. Bond L. In the case of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) ('Kakavas'), the Full Bench of the High Court considered the application of equitable principles relating to unconscionable conduct to the situation of a 'problem' gambler and his dealings with Crown Melbourne Ltd ('Crown'). Crown knew of Kakavas problems with gambling in the past but had subsequently been given a report by a psychologist which had indicated that Kakavas was now in control of his gambling. Harry Kakavas had a chequered past and a serious gambling problem. 2023legalwritingexperts.com. At some point, the Appellant was charged and convicted of fraud, which he alleged to have committed so as to fund his gambling behaviors. australiancontractlaw/cases/bridgewater.html, Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA. Kakavas submitted, at [6], that the principles of Amadio applied, particularly that ..whenever one party by reason of some condition or circumstance is placed at a special disadvantage vis--vis another and unfair or unconscientious advantage is then taken of the opportunity thereby created. The court accepted the claim that Crown was awareof Kakavass history of gambling problems, and that he had undergone treatment. encouraging him into gambling at the casino by an unconscientious manner. Kakavas was seeking to set aside his decision to gamble $20 million with the result that the money he had gambled would be returned to him. The trial Judge dismissed the Appellants claim against Crown, reasoning that even though the Appellant was a pathological gambler, he had not demonstrated how his condition hindered him from controlling his urge to gamble, and as such, he voluntarily decided to engage in gambling. Such disregard would bring about an ambiguous and discretionary situation where the position of law in a particular matter would depend on the interpretation of a particular judge. Trade practices Unconscionable conduct Gambling transactions Section 51AA for the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Whether gambling transactions involved a contravention of s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act. "Casino did not exploit man who spent $1.5b, rules High Court", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakavas_v_Crown_Melbourne_Ltd&oldid=1118628866, This page was last edited on 28 October 2022, at 01:33. In 1996, mental health professionals diagnosed him as suffering from a pathological gambling condition. Received my assignment before my deadline request, paper was well written. The judgment delivered by the High Court of Australia was purely based on the factual representation of the issue and the decision solely pertained to that. The allegations against Crown went to a full hearing before the trial Judge, at which point the Appellant adduced evidence to demonstrate that Crown had been inducing him to gamble at its Casino, despite having full knowledge of the Appellants addiction to gambling. 2021 [cited 04 March 2023]. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: My Assignment Help. 'precedent' is a previous case that is being used in the present case to guide the court. unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, The Court of Appeal, while affirming the trial Courts findings, dismissed the Appeal and held that the Appellant was not suffering any special disability as to lead to unconsented advantage by the Respondent. Kakavas v Crown [2013] HCA 25 concerned the claim by a so-called 'high roller' gambler, Harry Kakavas, to $20 million dollars while gambling at Crown Casino . From its very inception, the concepts of appeals and revisions have been provided to amend positions of law which do not meet the adequate standards in the interests of justice. As explained by Justice Mason in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14, the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealing will set aside a transaction: whenever one party by reason of some condition or circumstance is placed at a special disadvantage vis--vis another and unfair or unconscientious advantage is then taken of the opportunity thereby created. We guarantee you premium quality services. Although theprimary judge established that Kakavas was a pathological gambler, the fact that he was able toself-exclude indicated that he could control his interests in a rational manner.The second issue that the court considered was whether the Crown was sufficiently awareof Kavasass alleged special disadvantage. influence. Thus, indifference, orinadvertence does not amount to exploitation or victimization. Get top notch assistance from our best tutors ! | All rights reserved. It has also drawn the principles back to its core, which involves a person of special disadvantage involved in finite and limited transactions the subject of the claim. In a unanimous decision the High Court in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 rejected an appeal by Harry Kakavas against Crown Casino in equity. In applying the Amadio principle, the Court emphasized the importance of the factual setting of each case. This claim was, however, dismissed at the interlocutory stage hearing. the matter related to claims that Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew It can further be stated that the High Court of Australia itself has been proactive in overruling cases that do not meet the accepted standards of society at the prevailing time. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products. 21/05/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Mandie and Bongiorno JJA and Almond AJA). The following paragraphs will elaborate on the judicial interpretation of this doctrine as it was presented in this case. In the same way it can be stated that such a decision would also reduce the scope of judge-made laws in ways that cannot be determined by such a case. Callander, S. and Clark, T.S., 2017. Support your arguments withreference to precedent and scholarly publications and articles.referencing:You must always use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd ed. This means that there is no obligation on casinos to protect the interests of its patrons. The court undertook a detailed overview of the principle of equitable fraud. Cambridge University Press. AtLegal writing experts,we would be happy to assist in preparing anylegal documentyou need. Did Kakavas suffer from a special disability? We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. [2013] HCA 25. The provision undersection 51AA is a question of fact to be decided in line with the special circumstances of thecase. This also constitutes a part of all judgments and thus the legal position reiterated by superior court could also de differed from or overruled. It is based on the legal maxim ejus dem generiswhich dictates that cases with similar facts and issues must be decided in a similar way. Full case name: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd : The Courts reasoned that the Appellants condition did not take away his ability to decide and that the Appellant was capable of making rational decisions with regard to the relationship between him and the Respondent.