Date of this Version

1-1-2013

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Details

Citation only

Bigwood, R. (2013). Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd- Still curbing unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia. Melbourne University Law Review, 37(2), 465 -510.

Access the journal

© The Authors, 2013

2013 HERDC submission. FoR code: 180100

ISSN

0025-8938

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.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 

This document has been peer reviewed.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.