Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 and the doctrine of precedent….

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 and the doctrine of precedent.
In June 2013, the High Court held that a casino does not owe special duty to its patrons in cases where they have a gambling problem.
The Court, in a joint judgement, upheld the decision of the primary judge stating "[i]n the absence of a relevant legislative provision, there is no general duty upon a casino to protect gamblers from themselves.”[1]
Does the Northern Territory Supreme Court have to follow this decision? What would be required for this decision to be overruled? In your answer, explain how the Australian courts employ the doctrine of precedent in reaching their decisions. Refer particularly to the role of decisions of the High Court in the development of the law in Australia. [1] Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited[2013] HCA 25at [26].

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your accounting classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Active Discount Code FREE15