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

Rick Bigwood*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 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 Dive into the research topics of 'Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd—Still curbing unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this