Baker v Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd - [2011] QCAT 286

CITATION:

Baker v Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 286

PARTIES:	Helen Baker
v
Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd (trading as ‘Vendan Events’)

APPLICATION NUMBERS: MCDO3412-10

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: 9 May & 7 June 2011

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Andrew McLean Williams, Member

DELIVERED ON: 10 June 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $7,648.25 within twenty-eight (28) days.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Debt – Applicant seeks refund of course fees for business self-development program mid-way through program after refusing to further participate due to poor quality of program

Contractual term requiring full participation: questions arising as to whether early termination amounted to a breach of contract by the applicant

Circumstances justifying early termination, notwithstanding contractual term requiring full participation

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	The applicant appeared in person.
RESPONDENT:	Submissions in writing were received from the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Preliminary Matters

Minor civil disputes numbered 3408/10, 3409/10, and 3411/10 and 3412/10 are all claims in which the applicants sue Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd (ABN 689 538 101 02), trading as “Vendan Events”.

Although the claims are brought separately, each of them are essentially identical. The applicants seek the refund of $9,750.00, as was paid by each of them to the respondent, in relation to a businesswomen’s mentoring/self-improvement program known as the Inspire Series, as offered by the respondent.

The matter was listed for hearing at QCAT as a minor civil dispute before me on 9 May 2011, at 2.00pm. On that occasion each of the applicants appeared in person. There was no appearance by the respondent. In relation to the non-appearance by the respondent, before the hearing on 21 April 2011, the QCAT registry received correspondence from Crilly Lawyers who advised:

“… We refer to the above matters and confirm we act for the defendant in each of the proceedings.
We note that a hearing has been set down for 2pm on 9 May 2011 at Room 6A, Level 10, 259 Queen Street, Brisbane.
The notice of hearing indicates that our client is required to attend this hearing. However, due to health issues, as substantiated in the enclosed letter from her doctor, Dr Maria Haase. We respectively summit [sic] that our client is unable to attend and ask the Tribunal to grant our client leave so she is not required to attend the hearing.
Our client is confident that the material that she has submitted for the Registrar’s consideration is able to verily show her version of events and is happy for the matter to be heard in her absence.”

The matter proceeded to hearing on the basis of the matters advised to QCAT in this letter from Crilly Lawyers. After hearing from the applicants I reserved my decision, in order to more fulsomely read the materials contained on the four separate claim files, and particularly the respondent’s reply to the claims. As part of my reading of the claim files…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QCAT 286
Decision Date: 10 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baker v Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Baker, who sought a refund of course fees for a business self-development program provided by the respondent, Venzin Danielli Pty Ltd. The applicant ceased participation in the program midway due to dissatisfaction with its quality. The respondent argued that the applicant had breached the contractual term requiring full participation in the program. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the applicant's early termination of the program constituted a breach of contract and, if not, what circumstances justified the early termination. The contractual agreement between the parties stipulated that the applicant was required to participate fully in the program. However, the applicant argued that the respondent's failure to provide a satisfactory program justified their early withdrawal. The court had to consider whether the respondent's actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, whether any mitigating circumstances existed that would justify the applicant's actions.

The court found that the respondent's program did not meet the standards that the applicant had been led to expect. The quality of the program was so poor that it justified the applicant's early termination of the contract. The court held that the applicant was not in breach of the contractual term requiring full participation. The court further found that the respondent's failure to provide a satisfactory program constituted a breach of contract on their part. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a refund of $7,648.25 within twenty-eight days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $7,648.25 within twenty-eight (28) days.

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.