APS Satellite Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sky Mesh Pty Ltd) v Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of APS Satellite Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sky Mesh Pty Ltd) versus Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought recovery of costs under various sections of the Trade Practices Act and the Australian Consumer Law. The plaintiff alleged that the equipment imported by the defendant, Ipstar, was not fit for purpose, not of merchantable quality, and not of acceptable quality. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the cost of service calls and replacement parts, as well as for additional support staff wages due to the high number of complaints from consumers.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established that the majority of the items in question were not functioning due to inherent equipment defects, thereby not meeting the required standards of fitness, merchantability, and acceptable quality. The court also had to consider the plaintiff's claim that the defendant's defective equipment forced them to engage additional support staff, resulting in lost wages. Finally, the court needed to decide whether the defendant's imposition of a price increase on the plaintiff constituted unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court found that almost all of the items in question were indeed not functioning due to inherent defects, and therefore were not fit for purpose, not of merchantable quality, and not of acceptable quality. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim for additional support staff wages, stating that the factual basis for this claim was not established. The court also ruled that the indemnity provided for in the relevant sections of the Act and Law was intended to cover costs or damages suffered by the consumer for which the intermediate seller has compensated the consumer, and not the costs of the intermediate seller itself. Lastly, the court found that the defendant had engaged in unconscionable conduct by imposing a price increase on the plaintiff equivalent to the defendant's assessment of the statutory indemnity costs, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

The court's final orders included a determination that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the cost of service calls and replacement parts for the defective equipment, and that the defendant had engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court did not order any compensation for the plaintiff's claimed costs of additional support staff wages.