Reynolds v Katoomba RSL All Services Club Limited

• 1. Negligence
  2. › Duty of care
  3. › Pure economic loss
  4. › Self-inflicted economic loss
  5. › Gambling losses
  6. › Whether club owed duty of care to known problem gambler to prevent gambling losses
  7. › Whether autonomy of individual precludes duty to prevent self-inflicted economic loss
  8. › Whether vulnerability of problem gambler sufficient to found duty of care
• 1. Negligence
  2. › Duty of care
  3. › Pure economic loss
  4. › Vulnerability
  5. › Meaning of vulnerability in context of self-inflicted harm
  6. › Whether known problem gambler vulnerable in relevant sense
  7. › Whether practical inability to protect oneself required
• 1. Negligence
  2. › Duty of care
  3. › Pure economic loss
  4. › Autonomy
  5. › Individual responsibility for voluntary choices
  6. › Whether common law should recognise duty to protect persons from economic loss arising from deliberate voluntary acts
• 1. Equity
  2. › Unconscionable conduct
  3. › Special disadvantage
  4. › Problem gambling
  5. › Whether club took unconscientious advantage of gambler's special disadvantage

Quick Take