Mansfield v Samsung Australia

[2020] QCATA 5

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Mansfield v Samsung Australia [2020] QCATA 5

PARTIES:

KARL MANSFIELD

(applicant\appellant)

v

SAMSUNG AUSTRALIA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL107-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO982-18 Brisbane

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

17 January 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – where the applicant claimed the replacement cost of a mobile telephone – where there was limited evidence offered by the applicant in support of its claim – where the respondent manufacturer made an offer to refund the original purchase price subject to proof purchase – where Justices of the Peace wrongly noted the order was by consent – where the order required proof of purchase prior to refund – where the applicant was unable to provide proof of purchase – whether leave to appeal should be granted in the circumstances

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 133(1)

ACI Operations P/L v Bawden [2002] QCA 286 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Spaulding v Law Institute of Victoria [2013] VSC 632

Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented by L Christensen
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Mansfield purchased an S6 Samsung mobile telephone on about 2 August 2016.

2. He had a problem with the speaker in the telephone and complained to Samsung. Samsung replaced it with another model S6.

3. Mr Mansfield decided the telephone needed to be washed and mindful that there was a warranty about the phone being water resistant he put it into water. He had problems with the phone after that and he returned it to Samsung.

4. That model S6 was eventually replaced by Samsung again with another mobile, this time an upgraded S7 model, new but refurbished. Mr Mansfield decided to test the phone’s water resistance features again and again put it into water. Again, he found he had problems with the phone.

5. He wanted Samsung to refund him the price of a new model S7. Samsung refused that demand on the basis he had misused the telephone.

6. Mr Mansfield commenced proceedings in the tribunal to recover an amount of $1,345 as the cost of a replacement model S7 plus his filing fee of $120.50.

7. The matter was heard before Justices of the Peace on 4 April 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing the Justices of the Peace ordered by consent that Samsung refund to Mr Mansfield the cost of the original phone “once given the proof of purchase of this phone” and pay him his filing fee.

8. Mr Mansfield now seeks to appeal that decision. Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to…