Marshall v Frank Ugolini and Judy Burai Trading as Bubs N Grubs (Civil Dispute)
Case
•
[2016] ACAT 82
•22 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marshall v Frank Ugolini and Judy Burai Trading as Bubs N Grubs (Civil Dispute) [2016] ACAT 82
[2016] ACAT 82
22 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Australian Small Claims Tribunal, Marshall brought an action against Frank Ugolini and Judy Burai, trading as Bubs N Grubs. The dispute arose from a failed transaction in which Marshall purchased a quantity of goods from the respondents, who ran an online business selling second-hand items. Marshall sought a refund of the purchase price and additional costs, including freight charges, as well as the filing and search fees incurred in bringing the action.
The central issue for the tribunal was whether Marshall was entitled to a refund of the purchase price and additional costs, and if so, to what extent. The respondents argued that they were not liable for a refund as the goods had been delivered and that Marshall had failed to provide proof of return postage. Marshall countered that the goods were defective and not as described, and that Bubs N Grubs had failed to honour the implied warranties under the Australian Consumer Law.
The tribunal found in favour of Marshall. It determined that the goods were not fit for their ordinary purpose and did not match the description provided by the respondents. The tribunal also held that Bubs N Grubs was liable for the return of the purchase price and the additional costs as per the Australian Consumer Law. The respondents' counterclaim was dismissed as they failed to provide evidence to support their claim for damages.
The tribunal ordered that the respondents pay Marshall a total of $1,970 within 28 days of the order. This sum included a refund of the purchase price and freight charges, along with the filing and search fees.
The central issue for the tribunal was whether Marshall was entitled to a refund of the purchase price and additional costs, and if so, to what extent. The respondents argued that they were not liable for a refund as the goods had been delivered and that Marshall had failed to provide proof of return postage. Marshall countered that the goods were defective and not as described, and that Bubs N Grubs had failed to honour the implied warranties under the Australian Consumer Law.
The tribunal found in favour of Marshall. It determined that the goods were not fit for their ordinary purpose and did not match the description provided by the respondents. The tribunal also held that Bubs N Grubs was liable for the return of the purchase price and the additional costs as per the Australian Consumer Law. The respondents' counterclaim was dismissed as they failed to provide evidence to support their claim for damages.
The tribunal ordered that the respondents pay Marshall a total of $1,970 within 28 days of the order. This sum included a refund of the purchase price and freight charges, along with the filing and search fees.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Refund
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Marshall v Frank Ugolini and Judy Burai Trading as Bubs N Grubs (Civil Dispute) [2016] ACAT 82
Most Recent Citation
Jadk Builders Pty Ltd ACN 602 692 080 v Kumar & Anor (Appeal) [2024] ACAT 88
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0