Equitable Principles Of Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Ltd

2251 Words5 Pages

EQUITY AND TRUSTS ASSESSMENT TWO ESSAY BY: MUHAMMAD EL-JRADI, 17734989 DUE DATE: 13 APRIL 2016 In Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 and Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Burns [2015] WASC 234, [224], the courts delivered significant judgments relating to the equitable principles concerning unconscionable conduct which in the instance of the Kakavas case, it is possible to establish that the view of the High Court of Australia was partially influenced by setting a precedent in similar matters where a special disability is purported to exist such as matters where habitual gambling is positivity stimulated by the venue operators. The argument that an unconscionable contract is one which no fully capable and intellectually sound individual …show more content…

It is further arguable that the deterrence of unconscionable conduct is the superseding intention of equitable principles. The argument that unconscionable conduct and its prevention for the purpose of equitable principles is strongly supported by the judgment within Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; 57 ALJR 292 in which the High Court particularly found the equitable jurisdiction should be based to release the defendant from penalties relating to their unconscionable conduct within the contract. Within Legione v Hateley, Mason and Deane JJ jointly further stated the fundamental principle in which equity acts should not allow a party to exercise any legal right to amount to unconscionable conduct. Further, the principle judgment delivered by Mason CJ within Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; 62 ALJR 29 makes clear that within the property dispute as to the legal title, the avoidance of unconscionable conduct on the part taken by an individual outlines the essential concept of equity. The High Court established an equitable remedy of constructive trust on this basis of the prevention of unconscionable

Open Document