Global Work & Travel v Voss - [2025] QCATA 36

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Global Work & Travel v Voss [2025] QCATA 36

PARTIES:

GLOBAL WORK & TRAVEL

(applicant)

v

MACKENZIE VOSS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL115-24

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL CLAIM – CLAIM BY CONSUMER – agreement between applicant and travel agency – where applicant seeks working holiday in New Zealand – where tentative date of departure is approximately eight months ahead – where applicant cancels arrangement with agency a few days after booking made – where applicant claims cash refund in full – where agency refuses claim but offers cash refund of half fare paid – where offer rejected by applicant – whether agency’s position is unconscionable or a penalty or both – where primary tribunal upholds both heads of claim and orders full refund – where discussion of unfairness or unconscionability and penalties – where difference between appeal application considered

Australian Consumer Law s 2, s 20, s 24

Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 142

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167

Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 319
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’sGarage (Stourport) [1968] AC 269
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228
O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359
Snell v Morgan [2011] QCATA 316
Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307

Thompson & Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 246

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

The present applicant Global Travel & Work (‘Global’) is an international travel agent with its Australian office at 152 Elizabeth Street Melbourne, trading in Queensland.
Global describes itself as a ‘full-service travel agency [providing] working holidays as cultural exchange experiences’.[1]
[1]Transcript of hearing 19 April 2024 (‘T’) page 8 line 47 ff (Himmelmann for Global).
In or about October 2023 the present respondent Mackenzie Voss (‘Voss’) decided to spend a working holiday in New Zealand. According to her Global registration form she was then 23 years of age.
Booking made
On October 3 2023 Voss contacted Global and registered her interest in a trip departing from Brisbane in June 2024.
Global set a ‘trip price’ of $2,295, which Voss paid in full[2]. Airfares were not included.
[2]T page 14 line 1 (Himmelmann).
Travel arrangements cancelled
However, shortly afterwards, Voss cancelled her booking. According to her that occurred 3 business days after the booking was made;[3] according to Global she cancelled 6 or seven days later.[4] Bearing in mind that the projected departure date was some 8 months later any difference between the stated cancellation dates seems…

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.

Continue reading Global Work & Travel v Voss

Details

AGLC: Global Work & Travel v Voss [2025] QCATA 36
Case: [2025] QCATA 36
Decision Date: 4 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Global Work & Travel and Voss was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, focusing on a dispute between a consumer and a travel agency over a cancelled arrangement for a working holiday in New Zealand. The applicant had booked a trip with the agency, but subsequently cancelled the arrangement a few days after the booking. The agency offered a refund of half the fare paid, which the applicant rejected. The applicant claimed a full cash refund, which the agency refused. The primary tribunal upheld the consumer's claims, ordering a full refund and finding the agency's position unconscionable and a penalty. The agency appealed, arguing that the tribunal's decision was in error, but the appeal was dismissed by the court.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the agency's refusal to provide a full refund was unconscionable or constituted a penalty. The primary tribunal found that both claims were valid, leading to the full refund order. The agency argued that the tribunal had erred in finding the refusal to be unconscionable or a penalty. The court was required to examine the fairness of the agency's conduct and determine if it constituted a penalty under the Australian Consumer Law. The court also had to consider whether the primary tribunal had erred in its assessment of the agency's position.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary tribunal's decision. It found that the agency's conduct was indeed unconscionable and amounted to a penalty. The court highlighted that the agency had failed to demonstrate that its refusal to refund the full amount was justified. The tribunal's assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the agency's conduct was supported by the evidence presented. The court concluded that the primary tribunal had not erred in its decision, and the appeal was dismissed. The full refund order for the applicant was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal 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.