Support your arguments withreference to precedent and scholarly publications and articles.referencing:You must always use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd ed. theNSW Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to order a punitive monetary award for breach The judicial system and its framework is based on the hierarchy of courts and this hierarchy thus in effect dictates that lower courts would be bound by the decision of higher courts (Groppi and Ponthoreau 2013). Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products. As explained by Justice Mason in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14, the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealing will set aside a transaction: whenever one party by reason of some condition or circumstance is placed at a special disadvantage vis--vis another and unfair or unconscientious advantage is then taken of the opportunity thereby created. Such disregard would bring about an ambiguous and discretionary situation where the position of law in a particular matter would depend on the interpretation of a particular judge. In 1995, he sought and was granted a self-exclusion order from Crown. A self-exclusion order involves the gambler requesting the casino not to admit him to the premises for a period of time. What is the ratio and obiter of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited . [1] The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem. The Court dismissed the place for constructive knowledge in cases of this kind. In the same way it can be decided that the parties to the dispute were the Casino and Mr. Kakavas (Saunders and Stone 2014). He instituted proceedings against Crown seeking to recover the amount of $20.5 million lost through his gambling at the casino owned by Crown. These papers are intended to be used for research and reference Testimonianze sulla storia della Magistratura italiana (Orazio Abbamonte), Equity and Trusts Problem-solving Structures, Equity and Trust Topic Structures/Outlines, Uni checklist - This took me awhile but was a godsend to keep on top of things, Corporate Financial Decision Making (FNCE20005), Fundamentals of Management Accounting (ACCG200), Database Analysis and Design (INF10002/INF60009), Investments and Portfolio Management (FINC3017), Foundations of Business Analytics (QBUS1040), Nursing in the Australian Healthcare System (NUR1101), Academic Literacies: Learning and Communication Practices (COM10006), Foundations of Nursing Practice 2 (NURS11154), Applications of Functional Anatomy to Physical Education (HB101), Anatomy For Biomedical Science (HUBS1109), Economics for Business Decision Making (BUSS1040), Introducing Quantitative Research (SOCY2339), Lecture notes, lectures 1-3, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 9 Questions and solutions, Summary Principles of Marketing chapters 1-12, Exercises Practice 2012, Questions and answers.pdf, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 5 Questions and solutions, Exam-preparation-notes-case-study-applications-and-summaries-for-both-micro-and-macro, Horngren's Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis, 16th Global Edition Chapter 15 Questions and solutions, Comparative 7 stages of grieving and the longest memory, Othello Themes - Quote and Analysis Table, PICT2012 Assignment 1 - Policy Memo answer, Week 2 - Attitudes, stereotyping and predjucie, 14449906 Andrew Assessment 2B Written reflection, Farm case where father wanted the business to keep going so gave it to nephew [1] Between June 2005 and August 2006, he lost a total of $20.5 million playing baccarat at a Melbourne casino operated by Crown Melbourne Ltd ('Crown'). BU206 Business Law [Internet]. Wang, V.B., 2018. The victim is impecunious;? It can further be stated that the High Court of Australia itself has been proactive in overruling cases that do not meet the accepted standards of society at the prevailing time. Thus, the rights of the parties in case of such a position of law would be completely dependent on the legal stand of previous decisions. All rights reserved. The attempts to attract his business from this point onwards included being a guest of Crown at the Australian Open in 2005, use of a corporate jet, special rebates and commissions and free food and beverages. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. blackboard.qut.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-9418829-dt-content-rid- Equity comes into play when in contract, one party exercises dominance and advantage, over other party which has a special disadvantage or disability like old age, illness, lack of, education, illiteracy or any other similar type of factors. James Ryan is a second year JD student at Melbourne Law School, and holds a BA in politics and history from Deakin University.
Within the same period, the Appellants gambling with Crown had generated a turnover of $1.479 billion. Trade practices Unconscionable conduct Gambling transactions Section 51AA for the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Whether gambling transactions involved a contravention of s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act. UNSWLJ,38, p.367. In this case the precedent Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73was discussed and dissented from (Bant 2015). 2023legalwritingexperts.com. One suspects the likelihood of success will be increased by the presence of a somewhat more conventionally disadvantaged victim, whose vulnerability should be well apparent to the gaming venue. 'BU206 Business Law' (My Assignment Help, 2021) accessed 04 March 2023. My Assignment Help. Rev.,27, p.27. for your referencing. The plaintiff must point to conduct on the part of the defendant, beyond the ordinary conduct of the business, which makes it just to require the defendant to restore the plaintiff to his or her previous position, courts of equity dont stigmatise the ordinary conduct of a lawful activity as a form of victimisation in relation to which the proceeds of that activity must be disgorged, The absence of a reasonable equality of bargaining power by reason of the special disability of one party to a transaction, while not decisive, is important given that the concern which engages the principle is to prevent victimisation of the weaker party by the stronger, it is essential that there should be an unconscientious taking advantage by one party of some disabling condition or circumstance that seriously affects the ability of the other party to make a rational judgment as to his or her own best interests. Erasmus L. [1] The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or unconscientious advantage of the opportunity created by a patron's special disadvantage, being a gambling problem. Your academic requirements will be met, and we will never disappoint you with the quality of our work. Lastly, the Appellant argued against the finding that the Respondent had not in any way taken advantage of the Appellants special condition and vulnerability by inducing him to gamble and that the Respondent had acted in its ordinary legitimate course of business. American Political Science Review,111(1), pp.184-203. Regardless of the day or the hour feel free to get in touch with our professionals. The courtdecided that Kakavass pathological urge to gamble did not amount to a special disadvantage thatcould make him vulnerable to exploitation by the casino. The disability affects his or her ability to look after his or her own best interests in his or her everydaylife and not just in regard to the transaction with thewrongdoer; and? Further, he claimed that by permitting and. Earn back the money you have spent on the downloaded sample by uploading a unique assignment/study material/research material you have. Kakavas had a history of gambling problems. He was also what is known in the industry as a 'high roller'. In the period between June 2005 and August 2006, he spent a total of $20.5 million in playing baccarat at a casino located in Melbourne, which was owned and operated by the Respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd (hereinafter, Crown). HARRY KAKAVAS vs CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED 1. n this civil case, Mr. Kakavas was a serious gambler who gambled between July 2005 andAugust 2006. His main argument was that the Respondent and its employees had acted unconscionably contrary to clear provisions of s 51AA to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for having lured him to gamble when they well knew that he had gambling problems. Bench: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ. 2 (1853) 4HLC 997 [10 ER 752] at 275, cited at [155].3 Bigwood, Rick, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court ofAustralia, Melbourne University Law Review, (2013)37,346:446-510.4 Paterson, Jeannie and Ryan, James, Casino not liable for bets made by problem gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd,Melbourne Law School Opinions on High Court Blog (2013), 5 Ibid. The very purpose of gambling from each partys point of view is to inflict a loss on the other party. Highly In late 2004, he was approved for a return to Crown Casino. content removal request. He then lost an appeal to the Full Court in 2012. 21/05/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Mandie and Bongiorno JJA and Almond AJA) [2012] VSCA 95. We have only the best professionals working for us who deliver only better than the best services. Kakavas presented as a successful businessman able to afford to indulge himself in the high stakes gambling in which he chose to engage, the principle which the appellant invokes, A plaintiff who voluntarily engages in risky business cannot call on equitable principles to be redeemed from the coming home of risks inherent in the business. . The matter related to claims that the casino had taken unfair or Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne LTD; Still Curbing Unconscionability: Kakavas in the High Court of Australia. Question: In Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) the High Court appears tohave restricted the application of the equitable principles relatingto unconscionable/unconscientious conduct to circumstances where:? He later revoked the self-exclusion order. The use of foreign precedents by constitutional judges. Upload your requirements and see your grades improving. He also submitted that Crown had constructive notice of his special disadvantage [150]. being set aside. The Court explained at [161]: Equitable intervention to deprive a party of the benefit of its bargain on the basis that it was procured by unfair exploitation of the weakness of the other party requires proof of a predatory state of mind. But it is a well settled position of law that all individuals owe a duty of care towards one another in case of foreseeable harm that could arise and maybe foreseen by a man of ordinary prudence (Callander and Clark 2017). Thus there was a gap in the legal duty as far as casinos and the interests of their patrons are concerned. Upon hearing the Appeal presented to it, the High Court, like the previous Courts, found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed it. In instances of gambling the patrons stand to earn money in the event of a victory but are also subject to losses in case of a failure to win the wager. In a unanimous decision the High Court in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 rejected an appeal by Harry Kakavas against Crown Casino in equity. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25. [2] . Name of student. Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday, You are reading a previewUpload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss. 'precedent' is a previous case that is being used in the present case to guide the court. It has also drawn the principles back to its core, which involves a person of special disadvantage involved in finite and limited transactions the subject of the claim. Or you can also download from My Library section once you login.Click on the My Library icon. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd - [2013] HCA 25 - 250 CLR 392; 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35 - BarNet Jade. Received my assignment before my deadline request, paper was well written. The Problem Gambler The Court also emphasised that the essence of the doctrine of unconscionable conduct is not to relieve parties against improvident or foolish transactions but to prevent victimisation. It is based on the legal maxim ejus dem generiswhich dictates that cases with similar facts and issues must be decided in a similar way. However, responsibilities to take care when dealing with potentially vulnerable consumers may be imposed underss 2122 of the Australian Consumer Law, which contains broad prohibitions on unconscionable conduct that go beyond the equitable doctrine discussed in Kakavas, and under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) which contains a wide ranging power for courts to reopen unjust contracts. Login | RSS, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013): High court reviews the principle of unconscionable conduct, the operation of equity and the nature of special disadvantage, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited [2013] HCA 25, that Kakavas abnormally strong urge to gamble was not a compulsion which deprived him of the ability to make a worthwhile choice whether or not to gamble, or to continue to gamble, with Crown or anyone else, Crowns employees did not knowingly exploit the appellants abnormal interest in gambling. Kakavas claimed that the Crown hadexploited his gambling problem so that he became a regular visitor and alsoby unconscientiously allowing and encouraging Kakavas to gamble at Crown while the knew or ought to have known that Kakavas would be required to forfeit winnings by virtue of a NSW exclusion order. University Square Ben-Yishai, A., 2015. Secondly, even Kakavas did suffer from a special disability, the High Court found that Crown did not actually know of it at the time when the allegedly unconscionable conduct took place. This doctrine brings about uniformity in judicial precedents and also ensures that precedents of such value are not disregarded in the next instance (Callander and Clark 2017). This type of unconscionable conduct, results into dealings those are in general oppressive and harsh towards the weaker party (Burdon, 2018). Jeannie Marie Paterson and James Ryan, 'Casino Not Liable for Bets Made by Problem Gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd ' (6 August 2013). AGLC3 Citation: Jeannie Marie Paterson and James Ryan, Casino Not Liable for Bets Made by Problem Gambler: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd onOpinions on High (6 August 2013) . Paterson. This case related mainly to the obligation on part of a casino to protect the interests of its patrons. The respective sample has been mail to your register email id. Thus in doing so the court ideally rejected the evidentiary value of the precedent in which the court ruled in a different way. On the question of whether the Kakavis suffered a special disability, necessary for a finding of unconscionable conduct, the Court accepted the factual findings of the trial judge that Kakavis was a problem (even pathological) gambler. This concept embodies the idea of a legal reason given for the judgment. Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. purposes only. The plaintiff in this scenario Mr. Kakavas, contended that he was not in a mental state to adequately assess his own interests while gambling with the organization. On the face of the previous difficulties Kakavas had suffered, it may seem surprising that Crown approved his return, but they did so partly on the basis of a report by a psychologist who said that Kakavas no longer had a problem with gambling, and because Kakavas could apparently choose to exclude himself if his gambling became a problem. What knowledge was required to establish unconscionable conduct, and did Crown have that knowledge? Why did the High Court find that Crowns conduct was not unconscionable? While that does not mean the principle cannot apply, the Court said, it highlights the practical difficulty of prosecuting such a claim. My Assignment Help (2021) BU206 Business Law [Online]. The present case involved Kakavas, a problem gambler who was the plaintiff in the case. 40745281_1/courses/LLB205_21se2/Hyacinth_LD%20Repository/Learn/Extra%20resources With us, the more you will order the better it is on your pocket. In the High Court the claim was changed, and it was alleged instead that Crown had engaged in unconscionable conduct by failing to respond to Kakavas inability to make worthwhile decisions whilst at the gaming table. He claimed to suffer from a pathological impulse to gamble. 2021 [cited 04 March 2023]. Catchwords Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd Case Page Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. Theemployees of Crown never appreciated in an actual or constructive sense that the claimant had aspecial disability that hindered his capacity to choose to gamble with Crown in so far as a chargeof conscience in equity is concerned.The court indicated that constructive notice could not be extended to commercialtransactions. James Ryan is a JD candidate at Melbourne Law School. This type of unconscionable conduct is not permitted by equity and also by statute. Sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? In establishing the state of mind required to take action on unconscionable conduct,the court used a higher threshold than it had ever done in previous cases by requiring that theclaimant proves the stronger partys predatory state of mind. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 25 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. Lower Court Judgment. Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22 however is a widely criticized case for the way in which the concepts of precedential value has been misrepresented (Bigwood 2013). We do not store or share your personal information so you will keep your Law and Justice in Australia: Foundations of the legal system. The principle is not engaged by mere inadvertence, or even indifference, to the circumstances of the other party to an arms length commercial transaction. Disclaimer: The reference papers provided by MyAssignmentHelp.com serve as model papers for students being a gambling problem. to receive critical updates and urgent messages ! He claimed that Crown had taken advantage of his addiction, which he alleged to be a special disability, for its financial gain. If such conduct can be established, then the weaker party has the option of avoiding such, transaction. Recent Documents He had had to portray himself as sophisticated, financially capable and reformed in order to be allowed back in. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Copyright 2008/2009 Peter A. Clarke All Rights Reserved. In 2000, he moved to the Gold Coast and established a highly profitable business there. The Court further noted that the Appellant had previously admitted that the Respondent was not aware of his special condition and as such, the Respondent did not in any way take advantage of the Appellant. The Court explained that actual knowledge of the special disability was central to the finding of victimisation necessary to establish unconscionable conduct in equity. identity in total confidence. The Court did not consider Kakavas pathological interest as being a special disadvantage which made him susceptible to exploitation by Crown and Kakavas was able to make rational decisions to refrain from gambling altogether had he chosen to do so [135]. Unconscionable dealing is a concept based in equity and given statutory force under s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law (Cth) (previously s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)). Statute and common law: Interaction and influence in light of the principle of coherence. In here we welcome new clients with open arms and reward the loyalty of our existing clients. In 2003, he began travelling to Las Vegas for gaming purposes and this was brought to the attention of Crown, who then made efforts to attract his business. Section 20(1) of, the ACL states that no one shall involve in an unconscionable conduct as per the meaning given, in unwritten law in a transaction of trade or commerce. The High Court took the opportunity to clarify and tighten the principles associated with Amadio type claims. First, the Appellant argued that although previous Courts acknowledged that he was suffering from a pathological gambling condition, they proceeded to make a finding that he did not have a special disability that would lead to unconscionable conduct on the Respondents part. This is a narrow conception of what amounts to unconscionable conduct, ruling out cases where a trader neglects to take reasonable steps that would alert it to the vulnerability of the customers with whom it is dealing. Analysis of the High Court Decision in the Kakavas LitigationThe case of Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne Limited restricts the potential of a gambler tosue gambling houses and bookmakers in equity to a patron for unconscionable exploitation oftheir vulnerabilities. Kozel, R.J., 2017. The Appellant, Harry Kakavas, according to the High Court of Australia, a pathological gambler, who had a serious gambling problem for many years.In the period between June 2005 and August 2006, he spent a total of $20.5 million in playing baccarat at a casino located in Melbourne, which was owned and operated by the Respondent, Crown Melbourne Ltd (hereinafter, Crown). Get $30 referral bonus and Earn 10% COMMISSION on all your friend's order for life! In the same way it can be stated that such a decision would also reduce the scope of judge-made laws in ways that cannot be determined by such a case. It is particularly difficult to overrule constitutional precedents as the courts are conferred their powers through the constitution and thus the same needs to be interpreted in the same light. It was not possible to consider the Kakavas special disadvantage separately, in isolation from the other circumstances of the impugned transactions which bear upon the principle invoked by him. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that in some circumstances, willful blindness. This was laid down in the case of Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22(Kozel 2017). AtLegal writing experts,we would be happy to assist in preparing anylegal documentyou need. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service. propositionthat only the High Court could change the law so as to allow for the recovery of The allegations against Crown went to a full hearing before the trial Judge, at which point the Appellant adduced evidence to demonstrate that Crown had been inducing him to gamble at its Casino, despite having full knowledge of the Appellants addiction to gambling. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. This must also be considered that in such a case the precedential value of a particular judgment would supersede the interests of justice and the same cannot be condoned. Reg No: HE415945, Copyright 2023 MyAssignmenthelp.com. When seeking equitable intervention their Honours stated the following: The Court regarded it as highly relevant that the activities took place in a commercial context in which ..the unmistakable purpose of each party was to inflict loss upon the other party to the transaction and that there was nothing surreptitious about Crowns conduct [25]. It also refers to the transactions that take place between, a dominant party with a party which is weaker. Issues of gambling, the responsibilities of gaming venues and the regulation of problem gambling have been prominent in recent political debate. His game of choice was baccarat. It thus may be inferred here that the doctrine of precedent as it applies within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth is in the hands of courts deciding matters even if the precedent discusses powers of the court being conferred on them (Hutchinson 2015). In judging the evidentiary value of various precedents the case of Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 must be considered (Ben-Yishai 2015). High Court Judgment. He asserted that the two Chief Operating Officers of Crown had been accessories to Crowns breach of the statutory standards enunciated by the Trade Practices Act. This case also laid down two different categorizations for this degree of reasonableness. This would also mean that such a decision would limit the scope of judicial authority in case of overruling precedents. Section 20 of the ACL provides restrictions on unconscionablity involved in by any, corporation. M117/2012. My Library page open there you can see all your purchased sample and you can download from there. There was no predatory behaviour on behalf of Crown. Robinson, Ludmilla, The Conscience of the King: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 (5 June 2013) (2013) 17, CONTRACT FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF GAMING VIDEOS, ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. That's our welcome gift for first time visitors. In this case, the claimant failed to prove that the he was not in a capacity to make rationalchoices in his own interests to restrain from engaging in gambling with the casino. encouraging him into gambling at the casino by an unconscientious manner. To View this & another 50000+ free samples. The Crown had offered Kakavas free accommodation, use of the private jet, food & beverage deals and gambling rebates. Lamond, G., 2014. The American Journal of Comparative Law,61(1), pp.149-172. The case of Kakavas V Crown Melbourne Limited (Acn 006 973 262) & Ors [2013] Hca 25is particularly important as it elaborates on a lower court authority to dissent from a precedent delivered by superior court while also curbing the powers of the lower courts to act arbitrarily and in a discretionary manner by prescribing the importance of a Ratio decidendi. Reference to foreign precedents by the Australian high court: a matter of method. Thus, in the case of Kakavas, the facts did not show that thecasino was liable to patron for unconscionable conduct. Thus, Kakavas was not suffering from any special disadvantage. The court accepted the claim that Crown was awareof Kakavass history of gambling problems, and that he had undergone treatment. M.F.M. What is the doctrine of precedent? Rules: Unconscionable conduct or unconscionability is a doctrine present in contract law which The case revolves around the provisions of Gaming Control Act 1993, specifically the provisions of Section 79A of the act (Komrek 2013). Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance. But these findings did not demonstrate that Kakavas was unable to control the urge to gamble. His game of choice was baccarat. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. Carlton 3053 VIC Australia Kakavas had been previously excluded from the Crown in the 90's and it had taken him a lot of effort to be allowed back to gamble in the venue. Start Earning. In this respect a great deal of expert evidence was adduced to support the finding. In 1998, Kakavas was the subject of a withdrawal of licence order where Crown chose to exclude him from the premises on the basis of pending armed robbery charges. eds., 2013. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2009] VSC 559 (8 December 2009). In the period between June 2005 and August 2006, he spent a total of $20.5 million in playing baccarat at a casino located in . Appeal dismissed. He claimed that Crown had taken advantage of his addiction, which he alleged to be a special disability, for its financial gain. influence. Heedlessness of, or indifference to, the best interests of the other party is not sufficient for this purpose. High Court Documents. In the course of deciding the Appeal, the Court laid down a number of rules. The court undertook a detailed overview of the principle of equitable fraud. Kakavas claimed Crown engaged in unconscionable conduct. Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. [2013] HCA 25; 250 CLR 392; 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35. Unconscionable conduct in future gambling cases? the matter related to claims that Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew CASE NOTE KAKAVAS v CROWN MELBOURNE LTD* STILL CURBING UNCONSCIONABILITY: KAKAVAS IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA RICK BIGWOOD This case note explores the merits, or demerits, of the High Court's recent decision in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd. That decision appears to be further confirmation of a Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392 August 30, 2019 Travis Facts Harry Kakavas was a problem gambler who, in period between 2005 and 2006, lost $20 million dollars at the Crown Casino in Melbourne. Critics argue that the court merely contrastedpredation and indifference to the best interests of the weaker party, but did not give a preciseelaboration 3 .The decision of the High Court was based on the facts of the case 4 .