Karpik v Carnival Plc ARBN 107 998 443 & Anor

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Karpik, brought proceedings against Carnival Plc ARBN 107 998 443 and Carnival Corporation (the respondents) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned alleged breaches of consumer guarantees under the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) arising from a cruise holiday booked by the applicants. The applicants sought damages for loss and damage they alleged they suffered as a result of the respondents' conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents had breached their obligations under the ACL by failing to provide services with due care and skill, and whether the services were fit for the purpose for which they were acquired. Specifically, the court had to determine if the cruise holiday, as provided, met the statutory guarantees of acceptable quality and fitness for purpose, and if any alleged failures constituted a breach of these guarantees.

The High Court of Australia, in its judgment, considered the application of the ACL to the provision of cruise services. It analysed the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties and the scope of the consumer guarantees. The court affirmed that the ACL imposes obligations on providers of services to ensure they are provided with due care and skill and are fit for purpose. The High Court ultimately found that the applicants had not established a breach of the relevant consumer guarantees, and therefore, their claim for damages could not succeed. The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the statutory provisions in light of the facts.