Dominello v Travel Compensation Fund - [2008] NSWSC 678

CITATION: Dominello v Travel Compensation Fund [2008] NSWSC 678

HEARING DATE(S): 4 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 July 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The judgment of her Honour Magistrate Haskett dated 31 August 2007 is affirmed except the date that the payment is due is varied to be 28 days from today in lieu of 28 September 2007.
(3) Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL - Local Court Magistrate - interpretation s 40 Travel Agents Act 1986

LEGISLATION CITED: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999
Local Court Acts 1982
Travel Agents Act 1986

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Allen v Kerr & Anor [1995] Aust Torts Reports 81-354
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Carr v Neill [1999] NSWSC 1263
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fountain v Alexander (1982) 150 CLR 615
Gorczynski v Beilby [2005] NSWSC 884
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (1983) 3 NSWLR 378
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Maple & Co (Paris) Ltd (1908) AC 22
Jung v Son [1998] NSWCA 120
Orbit Travel Services v Travel Compensation Fund (1999) NSWCA 63
Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R L & D Investments Pty Ltd v Bisby [200] NSWSC 1082; (2002) 37 MVR 479
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Stateside Credit Corporation Pty Ltd v Hudson (1989) VR 519
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthlkine Constructions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588
Stocker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWCA 449
Travel Compensation Fund v Tambree [2005] HCA 69; (2005) 224 CLR 627

TEXTS CITED: Macquarie Dictionary 4th ed (2005)

PARTIES: Belinda Dominell (Plaintiff)
Travel Compensation Fund (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 14934/2007

COUNSEL: R Sofroniou (Plaintiff)
L S Einstein/A Korakis (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Colin Biggers & Paisley (Plaintiff)
Piper Alderman (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4812/2005

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Haskett LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 31 August 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

MONDAY, 7 JULY 2008

14934/2007 - BELINDA DOMINELLO v TRAVEL
COMPENSATION FUND
JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Local Court Magistrate
- interpretation of s 40 Travel Agents Act

1986)

1 HER HONOUR: In 2001, an Under 18 Panthers rugby league team were going on a playing tour to the United Kingdom, Ireland and France. To that end the Panthers paid to Natar Pty Limited (“Natar”) a substantial sum of money so that Natar could make travel and accommodation arrangements. Natar never made those arrangements, nor did it refund the money to the Panthers. Money was paid to the Panthers from the Travel Compensation Fund. The Travel Compensation Fund seeks to recover some of this money from Ms Dominello, a licensed travel agent.

2 By amended…

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 Dominello v Travel Compensation Fund 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: [2008] NSWSC 678
Decision Date: 7 JULY 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dominello v Travel Compensation Fund, the matter was heard before the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Dominello, sought compensation from the Travel Compensation Fund following a dispute related to the operation of a travel agency. The central issue was whether the defendant, the Travel Compensation Fund, was obligated to provide compensation under the Travel Agents Act 1986. The dispute centred on the interpretation of section 40 of the Act, which outlines the conditions under which the Fund is required to compensate customers of travel agencies.

The court was tasked with determining the scope and application of section 40 of the Act. Specifically, the issue was whether the Travel Compensation Fund was bound to compensate Dominello when the travel agency in question had ceased operations and left unpaid debts, including those owed to Dominello. The court had to interpret the legislative language to ascertain whether Dominello's circumstances met the statutory criteria for compensation. The interpretation hinged on understanding whether the cessation of the travel agency's operations and the resultant unpaid debts constituted a scenario where the Fund was required to step in and provide relief to affected customers.

The court examined the language of section 40, focusing on the phrase "when a travel agency ceases to carry on business," and the subsequent conditions that must be met for compensation to be awarded. The court found that the plain language of the statute did not provide a clear directive on whether the Fund's obligation extended to situations where the agency had ceased operations and left debts unpaid. The court concluded that the statutory language did not explicitly include such scenarios within the scope of compensation, and thus, the Fund was not obligated to compensate Dominello under the circumstances presented. The reasoning was grounded in the legislative intent and the absence of a clear mandate in section 40 to cover the specific situation of unpaid debts following a travel agency's cessation of operations.

The court dismissed Dominello's claim for compensation, affirming the decision of the Local Court Magistrate. The court found that the Travel Compensation Fund was not required to compensate Dominello under section 40 of the Travel Agents Act 1986, given the specific conditions outlined in the statute. The plaintiff's appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the original decision of the Local Court was upheld.

Orders