Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd  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.”[footnoteRef:1] [1: Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited  HCA 25 at .]
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.
Due date: 15th August 2018