CASENOTE: Rough Draft
Case Name and Citation: King v Star Limited [2013] HCA 60
Court: High court of Australia
Date of Decision: 2013
Procedural History:
Supreme Court.
Court of Appeal May 21, 2012.
High Court of Australia 2013.
Facts: King (appellant) lost $20.5 million in gambling at Star casino between June 2006 to August 2006. The Appellant believed he was taken advantage of his gambling by Star casino, and he was exploited. Because of his gambling addiction, he was unable to make a rational decision and was not aware of the amount and frequency of the wager.
King, the appellant insisted that he, as a high roller gambler in Las Vegas, should be treated with such privileges which included travel by private plane. The defended argued that, the appellant was well aware of his spendings to be able to negotiate his terms with the Casino head Mr William.
The appellant argued that the Judge’s and the court of Appeal erred by not applying Mason J Amadio’s principle to the case, by not applying the bargaining power by “reason of the special disability of one party,” that the unconscientious taken advantage of one’s conditions to circumstances that affects one’s ability to make rational decision.
It was the appellants choice to return multiple times during the period of a year as well as in a position to in which he may lose money at Stars casino.
The primary judge dismissed the appellants claim, and upheld Stars counterclaim for 1 million dollars of unpaid debt by King to be paid.
Issue(s):
Whether King suffered any special disadvantages?
Whether the plaintiff was aware of his actions?
Whether the decisions made by the primary judge was fair?
whether his negotiations for being a high roller an indication that he was in a conscious mind?
Judgment(s)/Reasoning: first, the appellants choice to return multiple times during the period of a year as well as in a position to in which he may lose money at Stars casino which demonstrates that the appellant was in full consciousness and knew of his actions.
Secondly, the appellant was able to negotiate his way to be treated as a high roller by the casino and bargaining with Mr William to be flown in their private plane, demonstrate that he was in full control of his actions. Thus, the judge decided that “The principle is not engaged by mere inadvertence, or even indifference, to the circumstances of the other party to an arm’s length commercial transaction.” in order for one to be unfairly exploited of weakness of the other party, the requirement of “proof of a predatory state of mind,” which the Star did not do. The appellant proved that he was a business owner and could afford these loses. Therefore, leading the judges to believe that the appellant was in full authority of his state of mind to make a decision, and does not qualify for special disadvantages.
Third, while gambling, the appellant did not seem like a target of victimisation any less in comparison to other high rollers in Star’s casino who chose to be there. And in Deane J stated the “special disability must be: ‘sufficiently evident to the other party to make it prima facie unfair or ‘unconscionable’ that that other party procure, accept or retain the benefit of, the disadvantaged party’s assent to the impugned transaction in the circumstances in which he or she procured or accepted it.’ Meaning, Kings action of accepting the plane ride was his admission of his actions.
Lastly, “We pause to observe that these negotiations reveal that the appellant was capable of making rational decisions in his own interests, and of bargaining in pursuit of those interests.” it was determined that the appellant was neither inadequate by the state of his mind and was neither vitamised nor exploited.
Ratio: The principle was not engaged, because in order to be exploited and victimised King failed to proof that the other party was in the knowledge of his addiction by his own actions of negotiating.
Obiter: “that one is not concerned here with a casino operator preying upon a widowed pensioner who is invited to cash her pension cheque at the casino and to gamble with the proceeds. One might sensibly describe that scenario as a case of victimisation.”
Court’s Conclusion/ Order: the appellants failed to prove his claims, and the appeal was dismissed.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.