Acuna v Apple Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWCATCD 53

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Acuna v Apple Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 53
Hearing dates: 17 February 2022
Date of orders: 29 April 2022
Decision date: 29 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: D Moujalli, Senior Member
Decision:

The Tribunal orders that the application is dismissed.

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW – Australian consumer law – consumer guarantee to render services with due care and skill – misleading conduct – compensatory principle

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law (NSW)

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Curtis v Potter & Co Pty Ltd t/as The Africa Safari Co [2016] NSWCATAP 196

Escape Media Pty Limited v Lawler [2018] NSWCATAP 17

Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60

Hueter v Learn To Trade Pty Limited [2018] NSWCATCD 71

Ireland v WG Riverview Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 307; 101 NSWLR 658

Jenkinson v Chaw [2015] NSWCATAP 127

Lam v Steve Jarvin Motors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 186

Marks v GIO Australia Holding Ltd (1988) 196 CLR 494

Safi v Heartland Motors Pty Ltd t/as Heartland Chrysler [2016] NSWCATAP 80

Weatherill v Bartlett [2017] NSWCA 175

Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Christian Acuna (Applicant)
Apple Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
J Alquisola (Respondent)
File Number(s): GEN 21/44795
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. On 30 October 2021 the applicant, Christian Acuna, lodged an application with the Tribunal (the Application). The Application seeks an order for compensation against the respondent, Apple Pty Ltd, in respect of lost income and lost time resulting from problems experienced by the applicant with a mobile phone supplied by the respondent.

  2. In the Application, the amount of the claim was stated to be $65,000. At the directions hearing on 22 November 2021, the Tribunal noted that the applicant submits to the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal being $40,000. In any event, at the hearing on 17 February 2022, the applicant pressed a claim for $16,801.50.

  3. At the hearing on 17 February 2022, the applicant represented himself. The respondent was represented Ms Alquisola, an employee of the respondent.

  4. The hearing proceeded by telephone. At the hearing each party was given an opportunity to present their evidence, ask questions of the other party and make submissions.

Evidence

  1. In determining the Application, the Tribunal has had regard to the following:

  1. The material filed by the applicant on 21 December 2020. This included a statement by the applicant dated 20 December 2021 and attachments to the statement. This was marked Exhibit A1 at the hearing on 17 February 2022.

  2. The matters stated by the applicant in the Application.

  3. The material filed by the respondent on 17 January 2022 which in total comprises 11 pages of documents. This was marked Exhibit R1 at the hearing on 17 February 2022.

  4. The oral evidence and submissions of the parties at the hearing on 17 February 2022.

  1. The findings made by the Tribunal on the basis of the…

Continue reading Acuna v Apple Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Acuna v Apple Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 53
Case
[2022] NSWCATCD 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Acuna v Apple Pty Ltd, the matter was before the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, which sought to enforce a penalty against Apple Pty Ltd for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute centred on the adequacy of services provided by Apple Pty Ltd to a consumer, Mr Acuna, who had purchased an iPhone 6s. Mr Acuna alleged that his phone had been repaired inadequately and that Apple Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading conduct by implying that the phone was fully functional post-repair. The central issue before the tribunal was whether Apple Pty Ltd had breached consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law by failing to provide services with due care and skill and whether the misleading conduct claim was substantiated.

The tribunal considered whether Apple Pty Ltd's conduct amounted to a breach of the consumer guarantee to render services with due care and skill and whether it constituted misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. It was crucial to determine if the services provided were defective and if Apple Pty Ltd had misled Mr Acuna regarding the state of the repair. The tribunal also examined whether the misleading conduct was such that it could reasonably be expected to lead Mr Acuna to believe the phone was fully functional after repair.

The tribunal found that Apple Pty Ltd had not breached the consumer guarantee to render services with due care and skill. It concluded that the repairs were conducted with reasonable care and skill and that the phone was not defective. Regarding the misleading conduct, the tribunal determined that there was no evidence to suggest that Apple Pty Ltd had implied the phone was fully functional post-repair. The tribunal held that the conduct did not mislead Mr Acuna in a way that would reasonably lead him to believe the phone was fully functional. Therefore, the application by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission was dismissed.

As a result of the tribunal's findings, the application by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission was dismissed. The tribunal found no breach of consumer guarantees or misleading conduct by Apple Pty Ltd. Consequently, the tribunal did not impose any penalties or further actions against the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that the application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.