Banjac v Flight Centre Ltd

[2012] QCATA 236

CITATION: Banjac v Flight Centre Ltd [2012] QCATA 236

PARTIES:	Branko Banjac (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Flight Centre Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL164-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 19 November 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – where the respondent advertises ‘lowest airfare guarantee’ – whether guarantee enforceable – where conditions of guarantee are not met

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 142(3)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 30 January 2012 Mr Banjac commenced a minor civil dispute proceeding against Flight Centre Ltd claiming that Flight Centre should provide him with a free flight.  The claim relates to Flight Centre’s “lowest airfare guarantee” which provides that if a customer produces a quote from a competitor at the time of booking, and Flight Centre cannot beat that quote, then Flight Centre will provide the customer with a free flight.

1. There are conditions to the guarantee which include a requirement that at the time of booking the flight with Flight Centre, the fare in the quote is available, and able to be booked by the general public and is for the same class and dates. 

1. On 19 April 2011 after having some discussions with a Flight Centre representative the day before about return flights from Brisbane to Venice, Mrs Banjac obtained a quote on the internet from lastminute.com for $6,567.54.  Later that day, Mr Banjac took the quote to Flight Centre at Pacific Fair and asked them to match it.  The quote could not be matched and the best Flight Centre could do was provide a quote of $7,354.00.  The evidence from Flight Centre is that at the time it produced its quote, the quote given to Mrs Banjac on the internet from lastminute.com had lapsed and those seats in that class on those dates was not available.  Flight Centre declined to honour the guarantee.

1. The matter came on before a Tribunal Adjudicator for hearing on 2 May 2012 and after hearing the arguments from Mr Banjac and considering the written submissions from Flight Centre together with the various quotations, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Banjac’s application.  Mr Banjac in fact booked the flights the following day on the internet direct with Emirates on different dates.

1. From that decision Mr Banjac has filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal.  As this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute proceeding, leave to appeal, or permission, is necessary.[1]  Leave to appeal will only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief.  Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?

   [1] QCAT Act, 142(3).

1. The learned Adjudicator in considering the application found as a matter of fact that in Mr Banjac’s circumstances the guarantee did not apply because he did not meet the conditions of the guarantee, that is, at the time of booking his flight with Flight Centre, the fare from lastminute.com was not available to the general public nor did he ultimately fly on the same dates as that fare.

1. However there is a more fundamental problem with Mr Banjac’s application for leave to appeal.  He did not enter into any contract with Flight Centre.  Therefore there was no contractual obligation for it to honour the guarantee.  At best the guarantee offered by it is an inducement for customers to use Flight Centre’s services rather than those of its competitors or booking flights directly on the internet.  There is no legal obligation, in this instance, for Flight Centre to give Mr Banjac a free flight.  The “lowest airfare guarantee” does not, on itself, create a cause of action legally enforceable by a customer if Flight Centre does not honour the guarantee even if the conditions are met. 

1. The relief sought in the application is not relief the Tribunal can grant either in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction, or generally.  If Mr Banjac has any complaint about Flight Centre’s conduct that complaint should be made to the appropriate regulator.