Jensen v Noble House Furniture Pty Ltd

Jensen brought an action against Noble House Furniture Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria, claiming compensation for a shower screen that shattered four years after its installation. The screen was purchased from Noble House and installed by a licensed builder at Jensen’s home. Jensen contended that the screen was not fit for purpose and that Noble House was liable for breach of warranty under the Australian Consumer Law. Noble House, on the other hand, argued that the screen was not defective and that the damage was due to external factors or misuse by Jensen. The court was required to determine whether the screen was fit for purpose, the nature and extent of Noble House’s liability, and the appropriate measure of damages.

The court first considered whether the shower screen was fit for purpose as per the Australian Consumer Law. It examined the evidence regarding the quality and durability of the screen, the circumstances of the incident, and expert opinions on the cause of the shattering. The court found that the screen was not defective and that the shattering was likely due to external factors, such as an unforeseen impact or natural wear and tear, rather than a defect in the product itself. Consequently, Noble House was not liable for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for purpose.

The court then turned to the issue of damages. Jensen sought compensation for the cost of replacing the screen, as well as for inconvenience and distress caused by the incident. The court assessed the evidence regarding the cost of replacement and the extent of Jensen’s inconvenience. It found that the cost of replacement was reasonable and that Jensen had suffered some inconvenience, but that the distress claimed was not adequately substantiated. The court awarded Jensen the cost of replacement, along with a modest amount for inconvenience.

Noble House sought leave to appeal the decision, arguing that the court had erred in finding that the screen was not defective and in assessing the measure of damages. The court found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, as the findings on fitness for purpose and damages were well-supported by the evidence and the applicable legal principles. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.