Basic HTML Version
24 • Touchline • Issue 16
HIGH COURT ROLLS
HIGH ROLLER’S
DAMAGES
CLAIM AGAINST CASINO
he relationship between
a gambler and a casino is
unique as each party sets
out to openly inflict financial
loss on the other. Consequently, claims
for damages by a gambler alleging loss
at the hands of a casino should be at
long odds to succeed.
Many sports clubs with gambling facilities
are likely to have been comforted by
the knowledge that, in the absence of
relevant legislation there is no general
duty upon the club to protect problem
gamblers from themselves. However, the
High Court has recently considered the
circumstances in which a casino may be
required to refund a problem gambler’s
losses in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd
[2013] HCA 25 (Kakavas).
The claimant, Mr Kakavas, was a known
problem and pathological high roller
gambler who had previously self-
excluded from many casinos, including
the defendant’s Crown Casino in
Melbourne. A number of years after this
self-exclusion, Mr Kakavas wished to
re-commence gambling at the Crown
Casino. Before allowing Mr Kakavas to
return to the casino, the casino requested
that Mr Kakavas obtain a report, clearing
T
James McIntyre
, Special
Counsel, and
Kristie
Swainston
, Solicitor with
DLA Piper Australia explore
a recent case of a high-
roller taking the casino to
court that has significant
ramifications for sporting
clubs with gambling
facilities.
DLA Piper:
T
+61 7 3246 4138
E
james.mcintyre@dlapiper.com
LEGAL FOCUS: