Court says that a casino took advantage of a millionaire's gambling addiction!
Anything related to casinos, casino games, new casinos, tournaments etc.
- Started by
- Johnny Karp
- last active 7 hrs ago
Readers of this topic also read:
- Very interesting piece of news here, I hope we'll discuss it further as I think it's pretty curious to say the least. Here goes:
CROWN Casino took advantage of millionaire property developer Harry Kakavas by allowing him to play the baccarat tables when it knew he had a pathological gambling addiction, three appeal judges heard today.
Allan Myers QC, for Mr Kakavas, said his client was not truly responsible for his own actions when he lost millions at Crown and the Melbourne casino should have refused to deal with him.
Mr Myers told the Court of Appeal that a person betting $300,000 every few seconds at the baccarat table was an indication they did not have the ability to look after their own interests.
Mr Kakavas had excluded himself from every casino in Australia, including Crown, and it was not disputed he had a "special disability'' that meant he could not deal on equal terms with Crown.
"He had a 12-year history with Crown and an evident gambling problem,'' Mr Myers said.
Mr Myers said the law stated that parties to any transaction had to have the ability to "conserve their interests'' and casinos were not exempt from the protection offered to people with disabilities.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"A person seeking to conserve their interests would not enter a casino,'' commented Justice Philip Mandie.
The Gold Coast property developer turned over $1.5 billion on Crown's baccarat tables between June 2005 and August 2006, betting up to $300,000 a hand.
Mr Kakavas is appealing against a decision of Supreme Court judge Justice David Harper, who threw out Mr Kakavas's $35 million claim against Crown, saying his gambling addiction did not disadvantage him in his dealings with the casino.
Justice Harper said he accepted Mr Kakavas had a medically diagnosed gambling addiction, but concluded that he had been in full control of his actions and at all times had the power to self-exclude.
In the same judgment, Justice Harper questioned Crown casino's self-proclaimed status as the world's leader in responsible gambling.
Mr Myers said the Gambling Regulation Act said that people who self-excluded themselves or were excluded for other reasons should not be allowed to enter a casino or remain in a casino.
Justice Mandie asked if it was relevant whether a person was wealthy and could afford to lose large sums of money.
Mr Myers said that legally a casino could not accept a $1000 bet from the richest man in the world if he had excluded himself.
"Whether Mr Kakavas could afford to lose is neither here not there,'' he said.
The hearing is continuing.
source: Adelaide Now
Well, my thought is that the casino didn't force the guy to bet large amounts of money. What do you think?
- Interesting article Johnny. I did read some while ago about his claim against the casino but I didn't realise he had self-excluded.
If you self-exclude yourself from a gambling establishment here in the UK or even online, it is actually binding for 6 months. You are not allowed to enter the establishment even if it's just for a cup of coffee. I can see that the way this is going, he will get some form of compensation, if not his money back.
- Im just wondering if you get excluded from gambling dosent the casino have some list to check his id with when entering the casino to check if his not allowed to gamble, but on the other hand i cant imagine many people entering a casino and start bidding 300k every other second without security should check out his playing in good trust and not having a problem/using money he dosent own in the first place.
But for usa i guess its pretty easy to just enter a casino and play atleast, here in denmark its very strict gotta wear nice clothes show id and pay to enter where they check your status as you need to register as a "member" before allowed to enter.
- Here Where I live in BC Canada if you self exclude yourself from a casino it is binding until such time that you ask for a review to allow you back into the casino. The self exclusion list (with photographs) is made available to casino staff. There are always at least 2 men stationed near the entrance and there is staff monitoring cameras for various activities, including looking for people who have self excluded or have been removed by the casino in the past for theft or cheating etc. Your BCGOLD card (like a loyalty card) is locked and is a way casino staff know you are there if you slip by the staff. When you self exclude you sign a document that binds the casino to uphold their end of it, not allowing you to gamble, and binds you to your end, not trespass on casino property.
- Johnny Karp wrote:
In my view you can't demand a casino to play the babysitter part for some wacky millionaire, his family should play that part. Let's think about this one: someone is an alcoholic, do they still sell him booze at the liquor store? Of course they do!
But if the guy has self excluded (which he had), then surely by law he should never have been allowed into the establishment let alone throw away $300k every few seconds?
- We have a verdict in this case: Australia's top court dismissed Harry Kakavas' bid and said that casino had not behaved unconscionably.
Here's some of what the High Court of Australia said: "Crown Casino did not act unconscionably in allowing the appellant to gamble and lose large sums of money. Mr Kakavas' gambling problem was not a kind of special disadvantage that rendered him susceptible to exploitation. He was able to make rational decisions in his own interests, including deciding from time to time to refrain from gambling altogether."
- I believe that if he had excluded himself from the casino that the casino had an obligation not to let him in. If he was such a high roller its not like he was not a familiar face when he was allowed in. I'm sure everyone was aware of who he was and what he looked like. I dont think self-will is at issue here because he did exclude himself and the casino should have honored that. Self exclusion is a persons last ditch effort to try and handle a bad situation. Gamble-holics have no will when it comes to gambling.
I agree, he was taken advantage of.
This is my personal opinion 8'|
lcb activities in the last 24 hours
Join the club
- new members
- members online
- guests online
- new posts
- free games played