Jayasooriah v Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWCATCD 88

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jayasooriah v Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 88
Hearing dates: 08 May 2025
Date of orders: 20 June 2025
Decision date: 20 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: P Gardner, Senior Member
Decision:
(1)   Within 7 days of these orders, the Applicant is to notify both respondents, by email, whether he wishes to retrieve either the First TV or the Second TV (but not both).
(2)   If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the First TV, the First Respondent is to make the First TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The First Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the First TV to the Applicant.
(3)   If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the Second TV, the First Respondent is to make the Second TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The Second Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the Second TV to the Applicant.
(4)   The First Respondent and Second Respondent may retain or dispose (in whatever manner they see fit) of the First TV and Second TV (as appropriate) if they are not collected by the Applicant by 02-Jul-2025 in accordance with these orders.
(5)   The application is otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW – Consumer guarantees under Australian Consumer Law – whether televisions of acceptable quality – whether repair services rendered with due care and skill – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – similar but not identical replacement offered and accepted – remedies available

Legislation Cited:
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 162
Avci v Inchurch Automotive Pty Ltd t/a Parramatta Motor Group [2019] NSWCATCD 39
El-Mir & 1 Or v Risk [2005] NSWCA 215
Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Limited (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 733
Sacks v Hammoud [2016] NSWCATAP 225
Sierra v Underwater Australasia Pty Limited [2024] NSWCATAP 131

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dr Jayasooriah (Applicant)
Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited (Second Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
R Nelson (Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd) (First Respondent)
L Filipo (LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited) (Second Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00404550
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This is a consumer claim concerning two televisions, an LG G6 (First TV) and an LG G1 (Second TV), which were supplied to the Applicant by First Respondent and which are manufactured by the Second Respondent.
On 19-Dec-2017, the Applicant purchased the First TV from the First Respondent at a cost…

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 Jayasooriah v Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd 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: [2025] NSWCATCD 88
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jayasooriah v Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr Jayasooriah, and two respondents, Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd and its service provider, regarding the quality of televisions purchased and the adequacy of repair services provided under the Australian Consumer Law. Mr Jayasooriah sought a determination that the televisions were not of acceptable quality and that the repair services were not rendered with due care and skill, which constituted a major failure. He further sought various remedies, including the replacement of the televisions and compensation for the failure to comply with consumer guarantees.

The primary legal issues in this case centred on whether the televisions supplied were of acceptable quality as guaranteed under the Australian Consumer Law and whether the repair services provided were rendered with due care and skill. Additionally, the court had to determine if the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was a major failure, thereby justifying the remedies sought by Mr Jayasooriah. The court also needed to assess the appropriateness of the similar but not identical replacement offered and accepted by Mr Jayasooriah and the remedies available to him.

The court found that the televisions were not of acceptable quality and the repair services were not rendered with due care and skill, constituting a major failure. The court acknowledged that the similar but not identical replacement offered and accepted by Mr Jayasooriah was reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that Mr Jayasooriah could choose to retrieve either of the televisions within a specified timeframe, and the respondents were to make the chosen television available for retrieval at their expense. If the televisions were not retrieved by the stipulated date, the respondents were permitted to retain or dispose of them as they saw fit. The court dismissed the application in all other respects.

The final orders required Mr Jayasooriah to notify the respondents within seven days of the orders if he wished to retrieve either the first or second television, with the respondents required to make the chosen television available for retrieval on at least three days' notice during business hours by a specified date. The respondents could retain or dispose of the televisions if they were not collected by the specified date. The application was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Within 7 days of these orders, the Applicant is to notify both respondents, by email, whether he wishes to retrieve either the First TV or the Second TV (but not both).

(2) If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the First TV, the First Respondent is to make the First TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The First Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the First TV to the Applicant.

(3) If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the Second TV, the First Respondent is to make the Second TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The Second Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the Second TV to the Applicant.

(4) The First Respondent and Second Respondent may retain or dispose (in whatever manner they see fit) of the First TV and Second TV (as appropriate) if they are not collected by the Applicant by 02-Jul-2025 in accordance with these orders.

(5) The application is otherwise 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jayasooriah v Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 88
Hearing dates:	08 May 2025
Date of orders:	20 June 2025
Decision date:	20 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	P Gardner, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Within 7 days of these orders, the Applicant is to notify both respondents, by email, whether he wishes to retrieve either the First TV or the Second TV (but not both). (2) If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the First TV, the First Respondent is to make the First TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The First Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the First TV to the Applicant. (3) If the Applicant gives notice in accordance with these orders that he wishes to retrieve the Second TV, the First Respondent is to make the Second TV available to the Applicant to retrieve at his own cost on at least 3 days’ notice during business hours on a date no later than 02-Jul-2025. The Second Respondent is not required to transfer or deliver the Second TV to the Applicant. (4) The First Respondent and Second Respondent may retain or dispose (in whatever manner they see fit) of the First TV and Second TV (as appropriate) if they are not collected by the Applicant by 02-Jul-2025 in accordance with these orders. (5) The application is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords:	CONSUMER LAW – Consumer guarantees under Australian Consumer Law – whether televisions of acceptable quality – whether repair services rendered with due care and skill – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – similar but not identical replacement offered and accepted – remedies available
Legislation Cited:	Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 162 Avci v Inchurch Automotive Pty Ltd t/a Parramatta Motor Group [2019] NSWCATCD 39 El-Mir & 1 Or v Risk [2005] NSWCA 215 Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Limited (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 733 Sacks v Hammoud [2016] NSWCATAP 225 Sierra v Underwater Australasia Pty Limited [2024] NSWCATAP 131
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Dr Jayasooriah (Applicant) Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd (First Respondent) LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) R Nelson (Moore Park Supa Pty Ltd) (First Respondent) L Filipo (LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited) (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00404550
Publication restriction:	Nil