Jensen v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 357

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

JENSEN V SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2025] QCAT 357

PARTIES:

CAMILLE JENSEN

(applicant)

LIAM JENSEN

(applicant)

v

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q8636-24

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

1. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd must pay to Camille Jensen and Liam Jensen $649 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

2. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd must pay to Camille Jensen and Liam Jensen costs fixed in the amount of $90.10 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – where applicants bought a smart watch manufactured by the respondent – where the smart watch was advertised as having up to 40 hours of battery life – where the watch’s battery in fact lasted between 6.5 to 10.5 hours – where watch was not used to run any memory- or battery-intensive programs – where an internal diagnostic test by the manufacturer reported the watch battery had no issues – where inference may be drawn on the available evidence that the watch was not of acceptable quality – where watch effectively of no value – assessment of applicants’ entitlement to damages

Australian Consumer Law (Queensland), s 54, s 271, s 272
Competition and Consumer Act2010 (Cth), schedule 2
Fair Trading Act1989 (Qld), s 15, s 16

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

APS Satellite Pty Ltd (formerly known as “Sky Mesh Pty Ltd”) v Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1898
Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] NSWCA 332
Knox v Tait Motors Pty Ltd t/as Tait Auto Group [2021] QCATA 87
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams [2023] FCAFC 50

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this proceeding about?

This proceeding is about a watch manufactured by the respondent and purchased by the applicants. The applicants say the watch is defective and that there has been a major failure by the respondent to comply with the consumer guarantees found in the Australian Consumer Law. The applicants seek to recover the amount they paid for the watch of $649.00.

The watch and what the parties say about it

The watch

The watch is a Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 40mm (LTE). The applicants purchased the watch from JB Hi Fi on 12 September 2023 for $649.00.
The applicants’ complaints
The applicants say that after purchasing the watch issues emerged regarding the battery life. Specifically, during the period from 12 September 2023 until 19 March 2024, the watch was fully charged overnight and disconnected from the charger at 7.00am each day, however by between 12.00 midday and 2.00pm the battery…

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 Jensen v Samsung Electronics Australia 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] QCAT 357
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Camille Jensen and Liam Jensen commenced proceedings against Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court, asserting that a smartwatch purchased from the respondent was not of acceptable quality as it did not meet the advertised battery life of up to 40 hours. The battery life of the watch, when not running any memory- or battery-intensive programs, was significantly less than advertised, lasting between 6.5 to 10.5 hours. Despite an internal diagnostic test by the manufacturer reporting no issues with the battery, the court inferred from the evidence that the watch did not meet the acceptable quality standards as per the Australian Consumer Law.

The court considered whether the watch met the acceptable quality standards as per section 60(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, and whether the respondents had breached the Australian Consumer Law by providing goods that did not meet the acceptable quality. The court examined the discrepancy between the advertised battery life and the actual battery life of the watch, and the consumers' entitlement to damages under section 236 of the Australian Consumer Law.

The court held that the watch was not of acceptable quality and that the respondents breached the Australian Consumer Law. The court found that the watch was effectively of no value and awarded damages of $649 to the consumers. The court also awarded the consumers costs in the amount of $90.10. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the consumers the amount of $649 and costs of $90.10 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd must pay to Camille Jensen and Liam Jensen $649 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

2. Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd must pay to Camille Jensen and Liam Jensen costs fixed in the amount of $90.10 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

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.