About: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/4C2UWEbFEi

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. 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.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. 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. (en)
name
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (en)
foaf:depiction
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
subsequent actions
  • none (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
thumbnail
citations
  • ; 250 CLR 392 (en)
court
full name
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (en)
italic title
  • no (en)
judges
  • French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ (en)
has abstract
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. 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 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. In earlier proceedings it had also been claimed that Crown owed a duty of care to a patron with a known gambling problem, and that Crown lured or enticed him into its casino. The High Court, in a joint judgement, approved the observation by the primary judge that "[i]n the absence of a relevant legislative provision, there is no general duty upon a casino to protect gamblers from themselves." The Court found that Kakavas wasn't at a special disadvantage which made him susceptible to exploitation by Crown and was able to make rational decisions in his own interests, including deciding to refrain from gambling altogether. Crown did not knowingly victimise Kavakas by allowing him to gamble at its casino. (en)
date decided
prior actions
  • Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (en)
gold:hypernym
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 55 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software