Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Australia | 1-800-335-6202

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 28 Cited in 128 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
JudgeFrench CJ,Hayne,Crennan,Kiefel,Bell,Gageler,Keane JJ.
Judgment Date05 June 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] HCA 25,2013-0605 HCA A
Docket NumberM117/2012
CourtHigh Court
Date05 June 2013
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
91 cases
  • Good Living Company Pty Ltd as trustee for the Warren Duncan Trust No 3 v Kingsmede Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 16 March 2021
    ...Australia v Kojic [2016] FCAFC 186; 249 FCR 421 Jenyns v Public Curator (Qld) [1953] HCA 2; 90 CLR 113 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25; 250 CLR 392 Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; 122 FCR 110 O’Sullivan v......
  • Lucio Robert Paciocco and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 27 July 2016
    ...212. 223 cf Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 at 474–475; [1983] HCA 14; Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392 at 424–425 [117]; [2013] HCA 224Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2014) 309 ALR 249 at 290 [173]. 225Paciocco v Australi......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
  • Competition & Consumer Law News – 5 July 2017
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 6 July 2017
    ...HCA 81; (1956) 99 CLR 362; Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447; Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25; (2013) 250 CLR 392 considered and applied. CONSUMER PROTECTION - Whether a credit contract between Bank and customer was one to which Consumer......
  • Hobson's Choice? Statutory Unconscionability Revisited In ASIC v Kobelt
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 31 October 2019
    ...other authorities, the High Court's decisions in Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49; (2017) 91 ALJR 1260 and Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25; (2013) 250 CLR 392. See also Kiefel CJ and Bell J at [15], Nettle and Gordon JJ at [145]-[153] and Edelman J at [4] At [14], [49] (per Kiefel......
  • 'No Deal': Kakavas loses High Court appeal
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 9 June 2013
    ...Solicitor, of Addisons in the preparation of this article is noted and greatly appreciated. Footnotes 1Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25. 2Kakavas v Crown Ltd [2007] VSC 526. 3Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited & Ors [2009] VSC 559. 4Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited & ......
  • Can A Compulsive Gambler Say He Was Victimised By The Casino, Making Enforcement Of His Debt Unconscionable?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 11 July 2013
    ...one party is alleged to have taken 'surreptitious advantage of the weakness or necessity of another': Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd, [2013] HCA 25. Such cases require scrutiny of the precise relationship of the parties and all the facts in order for the court to make equitable intervention.......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...decision of the same court considering Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, see Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392. See also Nelson Enonchong, Duress, Undue Influence and Unconscionable Dealing (Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd Ed, 2012) at paras 20–16–20–20. 197 ......
  • CONSUMER PROTECTION, STATUTE AND
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd[2003] HCA 18; (2003) 214 CLR 51 at 64, per Gleeson CJ. 91Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd[2013] HCA 25; (2013) 250 CLR 392 at 401, [19]. See also Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi[2003] HCA 57; (2003) 217 CLR 315 at 325–326, [26], per Gleeso......
  • EQUITY AND OPPORTUNISM IN THE LAW OF CONTRACT:
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2018, December 2018
    • 1 December 2018
    ...Piggott(1995) 69 P & CR 298 as at 2 December 2017. 227 [2015] EWHC 1454. 228 Minder Music Ltd v Sharples [2015] EWHC 1454 at [32]. 229 (2013) 298 ALR 35; HCA 25. 230 See further Warren Swain, “The Unconscionable Dealing Doctrine: In Retreat?” (2014) 31 JCL 255. 231 See para 26 above. 232 Sa......
  • THE UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS DOCTRINE IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA: COUSINS OR SIBLINGS?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 45 No. 1, August 2021
    • 1 August 2021
    ...J: at 475. It has also been echoed in later cases: see, eg, Louth (n 2) 638 (Deane J), 650 (Toohey J); Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392, 398 [6] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ) ('Kakavas'). See also Kobelt (n 31) 57 [146] (Nettle and Gordon (6......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT