Jamieson v Australian Therapeutic Skin Care Institute - [2015] QCAT 41

CITATION:

Jamieson v Australian Therapeutic Skin Care Institute & Anor [2015] QCAT 41

PARTIES:	Peta M Jamieson (Applicant)
v
Australian Therapeutic Skin Care Institute (ATSCI) Amanda Bishay (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO1983-14

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Cosmetic tattooing course – course as represented – delivery of theoretical and practical tuition – adequacy of tuition – delivery expectations – substantial completion

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Peta Jamieson

RESPONDENT:

Amanda Bishay

REASONS FOR DECISION
Application

By application filed 1 September 2014 the applicant Peta Jamieson seeks a refund of $9,600 she paid for a cosmetic tattooing course in April 2014 together with $2,254.39 on account of expenses associated with attending the course in Sydney. Ms Jamieson asserted the course was insufficient in knowledge, professionalism and basic infection control.

Background and Evidence

Ms Jamieson wanted to gain extra skills for the benefit of her clients. After enquiry she decided to undertake a cosmetic tattooing course with Australian Therapeutic Skin Care Institute (ATSCI) in the person of Amanda Bishay (Ms Bishay). The course was to be conducted over a seven day period Sunday 13 April 2014 to Saturday 18 April 2014 at a cost of $9,600.
In written material provided to Ms Jamieson beforehand the course outline and objective was stated as
This course teaches the fundamental building blocks and all you need to know to get you started and on a successful path of a semi-permanent cosmetic tattooing career …
That statement referred to the semi-permanent cosmetic tattoo course (four days) offered to Ms Jamieson at $6,600. In addition, Ms Jamieson was to undertake the ‘Areola Re Pigmentation’ course at $1,500 and the ‘Full Lip Colour & Blend’ at $1,500 a total of $9,600.
Some weeks prior to course commencement Ms Bishay forwarded to Ms Jamieson the course training manual which Ms Bishay said she instructed Ms Jamieson to read and familiarise herself with prior to course attendance. The course was to be conducted on a one on one basis.
It was not disputed that day one of the course Sunday 13 April 2014 was devoted entirely to theory. Ms Jamieson complained that no one could expect to be competent absorbing so much information in a seven hour theory day. Ms Jamieson said that during practical sessions in the days following that Ms Bishay would leave the room during procedures. She said the course was to include areola[1] reconstruction; that all she did was scar correction/repigmentation following breast reduction; that she had clients wanting reconstruction and that she had been given a certificate for something she had not done.
[1]Areola refers to the ring of colour surrounding the breast nipple.
Ms Jamieson asserted the eyeliner component was not completed; that ‘the only lady who came in for the procedure freaked out halfway through’; that she was only able to ‘get about 4mm of eyeliner on one of the eyes’. She said Ms Bishay took over and completed the procedure.
Ms Jamieson said that according to the course she was to practice top and bottom eyeliner; that she never got to practice bottom eyeliner; that she was also supposed to practice eyelash simulation which was never done.
With respect to lip blender and lip colour Ms Jamieson said she initially conducted some four procedures but that she was still quite vague on colour theory. She said she never mixed colours that she just observed. She said she was still vague about that as well as numbing and medication which was not something she did in her profession as a body tattooist.
With respect to eyebrows Ms Jamieson said 3D eyebrow tattooing was practiced; that no block[2] or shade brow tattooing that did not already have a previous tattoo underneath was undertaken; that the models were past students or clients requiring correction procedures to correct mistakes by previous students; that the before and after procedure photos she submitted indicated presence of prior tattooing. She said she did not get to start a new eyebrow procedure from scratch.
[2]A block is where you shade the whole eyebrow.
Ms Jamieson considered it an expectation that she would commence the procedure from scratch because the practitioner was there to supervise her.
Ms Bishay denied Ms Jamieson’s assertion regarding eyebrows stating a person named Faith presented with ‘virgin eyebrows’; that while she was initially nervous she did calm down and allow Ms Jamieson to tattoo her; that every single model that Ms Jamieson tattooed was very happy with the result. Photos of Faith were produced to the Tribunal.
Ms Bishay stated that some models did have previous tattooing so that Ms Jamieson could be eased into the procedures. She said that Ms Jamieson was given stencils to draw on the eyebrows mark with a permanent marker and then go over and tattoo that area. Even so it was necessary to design and measure irrespective of previous tattooing; that either way the procedure was the same.
With respect to colour theory Ms Bishay said Ms Jamieson was given the training manual which outlined all colour theory some four weeks prior to course commencement; that she told Ms Jamieson to read it thoroughly and that Ms Jamieson said she would. She said she spent eight hours on the first day the Sunday going through theory generally and in particular colour theory. She said she asked questions along the way to ensure understanding as she went. She said the manual set out the procedure to neutralise colour.
With respect to the written examination completed by Ms Jamieson on Friday 17 April 2014 Ms Bishay said she got 34 out of 35 questions correct; that if she copied answers from phone or the manual then she demonstrated that she knew where to find answers.
Ms Bishay produced training evaluations from students who had successfully completed the course and were satisfied with the result. She also produced photos of Ms Jamieson performing procedures in her clinic. Ms Bishay said Ms Jamieson presented herself as a body tattooist with a clientele booked out well in advance. She said that Ms Jamieson did have some prior learning with Ms Jamieson sending her certificates of having completed sanitisation and infection control.
With respect to the eyeliner component never being completed Ms Bishay said that Ms Jamieson did complete eyebrow, eyeliner and top and bottom lip liner components; that the technique and procedure in respect of each was identical; that a model Bonnie was very satisfied with Ms Jamieson’s work in this regard. She said that body tattooing was a more complicated procedure than cosmetic tattooing; that cosmetic tattooing only lasts three to four years; that only local anaesthetic which is not dangerous was used.
With respect to areola repigmentation/reconstruction Ms Bishay said that Ms Jamieson completed the theory for areola as contained in the training manuals; that the technique for measurement and design was the same whether it was breast reduction areola (which is what was performed) or post mastectomy where there was no areola.
Ms Bishay said the training over a number of days was never designed for students to be expert straight after the course; she said she, at times, left the procedure room where a student was performing a procedure purposely, particularly towards the end of a course, where she felt the student was confident to perform the procedure; she said that not much could go wrong in the circumstances and that in fact here nothing did go wrong. She stated Ms Jamieson never indicated to her that she was unhappy with the course; that it was only later that she got notice of dissatisfaction with the course. She said:
Peta being a body tattooist felt that the cosmetic tattoo course was to easy and she probably could have done it without spending so much money, had remorse and is now claiming her money.
Ms Bishay said she had delivered the training, delivered her assessment and had done her job; that Ms Jamieson had passed with flying colours both practically and theoretically; that she had left Ms Jamieson with necessary training manuals.
Ms Jamieson stated there should be ‘two parts to the course which I now know – it should be start the procedure & then you see your follow ups’. She said she would never have started the course if she did not have a standard; that she was ‘not going to go out and start work on people when I have not been given the correct foundations’. She said she only ever took photos of the procedure room during the course. She felt that because of her prior learning Ms Bishay took a lax approach towards teaching her. She said body tattooing required a four year apprenticeship.
Ms Bishay said no organisation in the industry that does cosmetic tattoo training conducts courses more than five days in duration; she said she told Ms Jamieson it was a five day course before Ms Jamieson paid her money. Ms Jamieson said she did not understand the techniques nor how in depth they were; that she was overwhelmed with the seven hour theory day.
A number of assertions were made by Ms Jamieson about the state of the clinic/procedure room; that it was not sterile, unhygienic and subject to cross contamination; that the course was cut short by one day; that the tattoo kit provided post course had items missing.
Ms Bishay asserted the clinic/procedure room was up to standard; that despite complaint by Ms Jamieson no action was ever taken by any responsible government authority against her. She asserted that it was Ms Jamieson how wanted to finish up one day early as her father was to be with her over Easter. She said the tattoo kit provided was a full kit not short.
In material produced to the Tribunal by Ms Jamieson a text message of 23 April 2014 is recorded. It reads:
Hi Peta. I just reprinted your certificates which I will be mailing to you tomorrow. I will also send you the pics I took. If you could send me the ones you too that would be great.
The reply reads:
Hi Amanda. That’s great thank you a bunch. I’m just getting back into it all so I’ll send them when I download my camera.

Conclusions

Ms Bishay was required to dispense to Ms Jamieson the theory and practical application of semi-permanent cosmetic tattooing a form of tattooing lasting some three to four years as opposed to body tattooing which is permanent.
Ms Jamieson was given a manual with which she was supposed to be familiar some weeks prior to course commencement. The first day of the course was devoted to theory within ensuing days devoted to practice.
Ms Jamieson complained that some procedures were not completed by her.
With respect to the eyebrow component the Tribunal accepts that the person Faith presented with ‘virgin eyebrows’. That even if eyebrow tattooing of Faith by Ms Jamieson was not fully completed it was nevertheless substantially completed. Design and measurement was necessary irrespective of previous tattooing and that was performed.
With respect to colour theory that was a component of the training manual to be studied by Ms Jamieson prior to commencement. Even if Ms Jamieson only observed colour mixing rather than physically doing it herself that was not necessarily a shortcoming but was rather the manner by which such mixing was taught.
With respect to the eyeliner component the Tribunal accepts that even if top and bottom eyeliner was not completed on the person Faith the model Bonnie did receive such treatment and that such work was of a good standard.
With respect to areola repigmentation/reconstruction Ms Jamieson was provided with a manual dealing with that. Even if Ms Jamieson did not complete a full reconstruction she did perform scar correction/repigmentation. Given that measurement and design was the same (and it was not disputed) for repigmentation (breast reduction areola) and reconstruction (post mastectomy) it appears Ms Jamieson was given sufficient practical training.
With respect to lip blender and lip colour Ms Jamieson conducted some four procedures.
Whilst Ms Jamieson may have considered the clinic to have left something to be desired in terms of high standards it was not such as to warrant intervention by any responsible government authority.
Ms Jamieson said she complained during the conduct of the course but there was no evidence record of any complaint at the time. Ms Jamieson completed the course without any complaint being lodged. The text of 23 April 2014 sent and responded to shortly after completion of the course did not express dissatisfaction with the course rather the opposite. There appeared to be an animated anticipation of impending arrival of certificates.
Ms Jamieson said the course was cut short by one day. Apart from the fact that there is nothing unusual about courses finishing a little early particularly where course material has been covered it seems that such may have been to the convenience of both parties. There was no evidence of any complaint or dissatisfaction about finishing one day early at the time.
The course primarily was to teach the fundamentals of semi-permanent cosmetic tattooing such as for the student to attain a basic competency. Ms Bishay was clearly satisfied that the necessary basic level had been achieved in the week. Ms Jamieson passed both practical and theoretical components its seems with apparent ease.
Whilst the delivery may have fallen short of Ms Jamieson’s high standards or expectations the standard of delivery was adequate in terms of representations made about the course by Ms Bishay. Ms Jamieson’s evidence falls short of warranting a full refund and travel expenses or even a definable part refund.
The application is dismissed.