Morris v Tiffany & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 255

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

MORRIS V TIFFANY & CO (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2025] QCAT 255

PARTIES:

JOHN RICHARD MORRIS

(applicant)

v

TIFFANY & CO (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q9990-24

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARD ON:

18 June 2025

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where gold bracelet exchanged for silver – where store credit given for difference in price rather than refund - whether consumer entitled to change of mind refund

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 50
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, Schedule 3

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented.

Respondent:

No appearance.

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

This decision considers a consumer claim for a ‘change of mind’ refund.

Background facts

It is not disputed that, on 14 September 2024:
(a)At 2.25pm, Mr Morris purchased a ‘Heart Tag Bead Bracelet’ in yellow gold from Tiffany & Co.’s Brisbane store at a price of $4,300.00 as a gift for his partner.
(b)At 4.25pm, Mr Morris returned the bracelet to Tiffany & Co.’s Gold Coast store and purchased a sterling silver bracelet valued at $460.00 in its place.
(c)Mr Morris was refused a refund of the balance purchase price and received a store credit of $3,840.00 in lieu.
Mr Morris explains that in the intervening period, his partner had informed him that the gold bracelet was not their “bracelet of choice”.
By an application in a minor civil dispute - consumer trader dispute filed 15 October 2024[1] Mr Morris seeks an order against Tiffany & Co to compel them to pay him the unspent store credit balance.
[1]Amended, with leave, on 21 March 2025.
The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear minor civil disputes,[2] including claims arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader.[3] It is not contentious that Mr Morris is a consumer, and the respondent is trader for the purpose of the minor civil dispute – consumer trader jurisdiction nor that the claim arises from a sale transaction that took place between them.
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 11.
[3]Ibid, Schedule 3 (definition of ‘minor civil dispute').

Submissions

Mr Morris argued that:
(a)He is entitled to a change of mind refund because nothing in the terms of sale prohibited it, and, in any event, Tiffany & Co’s refund policy was not adequately brought to his attention at the point of sale.
(b)The Australian Consumer Law, contained in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (ACL) prohibits traders from refusing refunds. He tendered the following extract…

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 Morris v Tiffany & Co (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 255
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the consumer, Morris, and Tiffany & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd, a jewellery retailer. Morris exchanged a gold bracelet for a silver one at the defendant's store. The defendant provided store credit for the difference in price rather than a cash refund. Morris sought a refund in accordance with the Australian Consumer Law, arguing that she was entitled to a change of mind refund under section 274 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining whether Morris was entitled to a refund as per the consumer protection legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's offer of store credit constituted a valid form of refund under the Australian Consumer Law, specifically section 274, which provides consumers with a right to a refund within 30 days of purchasing goods if they change their mind. The court had to consider whether the store credit provided by the defendant was an acceptable form of refund, or if Morris was entitled to a cash refund instead. The court also needed to examine the terms and conditions of the transaction and the relevant statutory provisions to reach a decision.

The court held that the defendant's offer of store credit was a valid form of refund under section 274 of the Australian Consumer Law. The court found that the defendant had provided Morris with an alternative to a cash refund, which complied with the statutory provisions. The court further determined that the defendant's offer of store credit was a reasonable and acceptable form of refund, and therefore, Morris was not entitled to a cash refund. Consequently, the court dismissed Morris's application for a change of mind refund.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute is dismissed.

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.