Morris v Finnair
[2025] FedCFamC2G 885
•3 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Morris v Finnair [2025] FedCFamC2G 885
File number(s): BRG 563 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE VASTA Date of judgment: 3 March 2025 Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Consumer protection – where respondent refused to engage in process – default judgment entered – damages assessed Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 16 Date of last submission/s: 3 March 2025 Date of hearing: 3 March 2025 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Wright of Gibbs Wright Lawyers Pty Ltd Solicitor for the Respondent: There being no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent ORDERS
BRG 563 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: ANTHONY J H MORRIS QC
Applicant
AND: FINNAIR OSAKEYHTIO, ALSO KNOWN AS FINNAIR PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS FINNAIR AKTIEBOLAG, ABN 67 937 318 356
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE VASTA
DATE OF ORDER:
3 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Respondent pay to the Applicant aggravated damages in the sum of $7000, with interest upon this amount to be calculated from 3 March 2025 at the rate of 5% per annum.
2.The Respondent pay to the Applicant general damages in the sum of $5162.62, with interest upon this amount to be calculated from 9 September 2024 at the rate of 5% per annum.
3.The Respondent pay to the Applicant special damages in the sum of $8337.38, with interest upon this amount to be calculated from 9 September 2024 at the rate of 5% per annum.
4.The Respondent pay the Applicant’s cost of and incidental to these proceedings fixed in the sum of $2500.
IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.The matter proceeded today pursuant to r.13.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore)JUDGE VASTA
On 9 September 2024, the applicant, Anthony John Hunter Morris, asked this Court to grant him his claim, which was based on consumer protection legislation. His claim was for special damages, general damages, aggravated damages, interest and costs. When the matter came before me, I expressed some disquiet at looking at this matter simply because Mr Morris is known personally to me and did represent me in an action I took in 2002, some 12 years before it was that I was appointed to this Court.
Because it was that this matter did not proceed to a hearing where questions of credibility would be an issue, I explained to the Court that day that I would continue to administratively deal with the matter if it was that the matter ended up being a default judgment.
I did not feel that the contact that I have had with Mr Morris in the past would disqualify me from making the orders that were sought. As it happened, the respondent did not appear on the first day, which was 13 January 2025. I adjourned the matter to 3 February 2025, but the respondent still did not appear. I adjourned the matter then to today, 3 March 2025.
Having looked at the affidavit of Haziz Muhammad, that that was sworn on 26 February 2025, I am satisfied that the respondent has been served with the documents, because the information from Australia Post is that the documents were delivered to the address of the respondent. The respondent has failed to appear, and therefore it is appropriate that the Court proceeds pursuant to the Rules, specifically r 13.06(1)(c), and gives a judgment in default of appearance.
The facts of the matter are generally that the applicant, his wife and daughter, contracted with the respondent to use their services to fly from Brisbane to Europe, most notably to Paris, so that the applicant, his wife and his daughter could attend the Paris Olympics.
In short, the respondent lost a bag that was checked in properly on one leg of the flight. The drama that the applicant and his family were then subjected to, in order to retrieve this bag, would be laughable if it were not so serious. It led to terrible stress, especially to the applicant, and it spoiled the enjoyment of the time spent in Europe by the applicant, his wife and child.
To say that the attitude of the respondent was “cavalier” would be an understatement.
Because this is a default judgment, I will not traverse the very many steps that the applicant had to undergo, the hurdles he had to jump over, the hoops he had to go through, to finally retrieve the bag. The respondent did contact the applicant, and whilst this is not a matter of which I would not normally take any notice, they did offer a sum of €50 as some form of compensation. The reason I note this is that such action illustrates that the respondent knows full well of this proceeding and have simply refused to engage.
I am satisfied that the particulars of special damage have been made out, that being: the Olympic Games tickets that were wasted; the airfares to the extent of that part of the trip that was wasted; the Airbnb cost that was wasted; the Eurail passes that were wasted; the travel insurance, which was very much wasted; and, the ground transport costs to eventually locate and retrieve the missing bag. The total of those special damages amounts to $8,337.38.
As far as general damages are concerned, it seems to me that the manner in which the respondent airline acted, as I have said, is cavalier. I would assess the general damages in the sum of $5,162.62. I have done that so that the special damages and the general damages total a sum of $13,500.
I am also of the view that aggravated damages ought be assessed because of the manner in which the respondent has failed to engage with the applicant and with the Court.
The applicant speaks of the feeling of helplessness that he had when he was unable to secure assistance from the respondent or its agents. The applicant also spoke of the feeling that he had when the respondent left the applicant himself to sort out a problem that the respondent had made without giving any real assistance to the applicant. I also note the inconsistent, and clearly inaccurate, information which the respondent supplied to the applicant over a period of four days and the unavailability of any executive from the respondent who was willing to discuss these matters with the applicant. I take into account the failure of the respondent to respond to the applicant’s communications by way of complaint after he returned to Australia, and the way in which the respondent has treated these proceedings.
Aggravated damages are meant to denounce the manner in which the respondent has dealt with these matters.
I am of the view that, having regard to the material before me, aggravated damages ought to be calculated in the sum of $7,000.
Interest upon the amount of general damages and special damages will be calculated from the date of the commencement of these proceedings, being 9 September 2024, at a rate of 5 per cent per annum, and for the aggravated damages, the interest will be calculated from today until payment, again at a rate of 5 per cent.
I order that the respondent pay the costs of the proceedings fixed in the sum of $2,500.
I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Vasta. Associate:
Dated: 10 June 2025
0
0
1