Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd—Still curbing unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia

Rick Bigwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 contemporary judicial tendency in Australia, which is to seriously restrict the ameliorative potential of the Amadio-style 'unconscionable dealing' doctrine, at least in relation to so-called 'arm's-length commercial transactions'. The High Court held that no relief is available for unconscionable dealing - or for 'unconscionable conduct' under s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law), which is the selfsame thing-unless the party alleged to have acted unconscionably actually knew of the victim's relative 'special disadvantage' and 'preyed upon' him or her. This note questions whether, in relation to a doctrine that has traditionally been understood to implement a legal policy of protecting the transactionally vulnerable from victimisation, the law relating to unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia ought to be limited to disciplining nakedly exploitative conduct and nothing less.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)463-508
Number of pages46
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume37
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

doctrine
legal policy
Law
court decision
victimization
transaction
act

Cite this

@article{2a408add73e24b7987678d6e8eb04da2,
title = "Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd—Still curbing unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia",
abstract = "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 contemporary judicial tendency in Australia, which is to seriously restrict the ameliorative potential of the Amadio-style 'unconscionable dealing' doctrine, at least in relation to so-called 'arm's-length commercial transactions'. The High Court held that no relief is available for unconscionable dealing - or for 'unconscionable conduct' under s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law), which is the selfsame thing-unless the party alleged to have acted unconscionably actually knew of the victim's relative 'special disadvantage' and 'preyed upon' him or her. This note questions whether, in relation to a doctrine that has traditionally been understood to implement a legal policy of protecting the transactionally vulnerable from victimisation, the law relating to unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia ought to be limited to disciplining nakedly exploitative conduct and nothing less.",
author = "Rick Bigwood",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "463--508",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",
issn = "0025-8938",
publisher = "MELBOURNE UNIV LAW REVIEW ASSOC",
number = "2",

}

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd—Still curbing unconscionability : Kakavas in the High Court of Australia . / Bigwood, Rick.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2013, p. 463-508.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd—Still curbing unconscionability

T2 - Kakavas in the High Court of Australia

AU - Bigwood, Rick

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - 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 contemporary judicial tendency in Australia, which is to seriously restrict the ameliorative potential of the Amadio-style 'unconscionable dealing' doctrine, at least in relation to so-called 'arm's-length commercial transactions'. The High Court held that no relief is available for unconscionable dealing - or for 'unconscionable conduct' under s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law), which is the selfsame thing-unless the party alleged to have acted unconscionably actually knew of the victim's relative 'special disadvantage' and 'preyed upon' him or her. This note questions whether, in relation to a doctrine that has traditionally been understood to implement a legal policy of protecting the transactionally vulnerable from victimisation, the law relating to unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia ought to be limited to disciplining nakedly exploitative conduct and nothing less.

AB - 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 contemporary judicial tendency in Australia, which is to seriously restrict the ameliorative potential of the Amadio-style 'unconscionable dealing' doctrine, at least in relation to so-called 'arm's-length commercial transactions'. The High Court held that no relief is available for unconscionable dealing - or for 'unconscionable conduct' under s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law), which is the selfsame thing-unless the party alleged to have acted unconscionably actually knew of the victim's relative 'special disadvantage' and 'preyed upon' him or her. This note questions whether, in relation to a doctrine that has traditionally been understood to implement a legal policy of protecting the transactionally vulnerable from victimisation, the law relating to unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia ought to be limited to disciplining nakedly exploitative conduct and nothing less.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897772042&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 463

EP - 508

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

SN - 0025-8938

IS - 2

ER -