Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 1:00pm, Lewis Seminar Room, W38, Economics, Business and Law

‘Curbing ‘Unconscionable Dealing’ in the High Court of Australia: Reflections on Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd’
This seminar will explore the merits, or demerits, of the High Court’s recent decision in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 298 ALR 35. 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. The seminar will address the question of whether, in relation to a doctrine that has traditionally been understood to implement a legal policy of protecting the transactional vulnerable from victimisation, the law relating to unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia ought to be limited to disciplining nakedly exploitative conduct and nothing less.