Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

{{Short description|Judgement of the High Court of Australia}}

{{Use Australian English|date=June 2018}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2018}}

{{italic title}}

{{Infobox court case

| name=Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

| italic title = no

| court=High Court of Australia

| image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg

| date decided=5 June 2013

| full name= Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

| citations={{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}}; 250 CLR 392

| judges=French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ

| prior actions=Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd {{Cite AustLII|VSC|559|2009}}
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd {{Cite AustLII|VSCA|95|2012}}

| subsequent actions=none

| opinions=

}}

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court.Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} [http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca25-2013-06-05.pdf judgement summary] at High Court of Australia Website. 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.Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} at [5].

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.Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} at [3] and [27]. In earlier proceedings it had also been claimed that Crown owed a duty of care to a patron with a known gambling problem,Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd {{Cite AustLII|VSC|559|2009}}at [436]. and that Crown lured or enticed him into its casino.Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} at [5].{{cite news|author=Heath Aston|title=Casino did not exploit man who spent $1.5b, rules High Court|publisher=Brisbane Times|url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/casino-did-not-exploit-man-who-spent-15b-rules-high-court-20130605-2npe5.html|date=2013-06-05}}

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."Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} at [26]. 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.Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited {{Cite AustLII|HCA|25|2013}} at [135].