Hudson v Big Uppetite Pty Limited

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

HUDSON V BIG UPPETITE PTY LIMITED [2023] NSWCATCD 179

Hearing dates:

15 August 2023

Date of orders:

06 November 2023

Decision date:

06 November 2023

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

S.Sutherland, General Member

Decision:

1.The respondent, Big Uppetite Pty Limited, is to pay the applicant, Sophia Hudson, the amount of $3,000.00 on or before 20 November 2023.

2. All other claims are dismissed.

Catchwords:

CONSUMER CLAIM – Contract- Claim of a breach of contract – due care and skill – terms of contract – unfair term

Legislation Cited:

Fair Trading Act, 1987; Part 6A

Australian Consumer Law (NSW); ss 23, 60

Cases Cited:

Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 17 CLR 479

Mayne Nickless Ltd v Crawford (1992) 59 SASR 490

Read v Nerey Nominees Pty Ltd [1979] VicRp 6

Liu v Zaccaria trading as Precision Automotive Engineers [2017] NSWCATCD 59

Scenic Tours Pty Ltd v Moore (2018) 361 ALR 456

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited [2015] FCA 1204

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; [1994] HCA 54

Texts Cited:

S.G. Corones The Australian Consumer Law (2019) LawBook Co

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Sophia Hudson (applicant)
Big Uppetite Pty Limited (respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (self-represented)
Jenna Davies and Jade Spooner for the respondent

File Number(s):

GEN 23/21925

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is a claim by the applicant that she paid for a consulting service for the development of her website, the program, “The Digital Accelerator Program” with a duration of 12 weeks was not provided as contracted by the parties and that the work was not completed with due care and skill pursuant to Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). The applicant seeks the amount in compensation of $9,000.00. The contracted amount was $18,000.00.

Jurisdiction

2. I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to deal with this application under Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (“FT”) (sections 79I and 79J) as a “consumer claim” as that term is defined in section 79E of the FT Act in that it is a claim for a specified sum of money that arises from the supply of services to the applicant by the respondents. The applicant is a consumer as that term is defined in section 79D of the FT Act in that they are natural persons: sub-section 79D(a). No attempt has been made to prove the contrary; section 79H of the FT Act.

3. Section 79L of the FT Act provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim, relevantly to this case, if the cause of action giving rise to the claim first accrued more than three years before the date on which the claim is lodged. The claim concerning the services were lodged on 11 May 2023. The parties contracted on 10 January 2023. The amount claimed by the applicant is $9,000.00. I find I have jurisdiction to hear the claim.