Pickles v Consumer Claims Tribunal - [1999] NSWSC 104

CITATION: Pickles v Consumer Claims Tribunal [1999] NSWSC 104

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Administrative Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 30015/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18 February 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 1999

PARTIES :

Pickles Auctions Pty Limited
(Plaintiff)
v
The Registrar Consumer Claims Tribunal
(First Defendant)
Jim Markakis
(Second Defendant)
Minister For Fair Trading
(Intervener)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Consumer Claims Tribunal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : TSY97/881

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: G. Vardas (Referee)

COUNSEL : P - Mr R W White SC, Mr J E Armfield
I - Mr J Basten QC, Ms M Gilmour

SOLICITORS: P - Glasson, Gemmell & McGill
I - I V Knight, Crown Solicitor

CATCHWORDS: Consumer claim jurisdiction

ACTS CITED: Consumer Claims Tribunals Act
1987
s. 3

DECISION: Summons dismissed

- 11 -
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
MASTER MALPASS
23 February 1999
30015/98 - Pickles Auctions Pty Limited v The Registrar Consumer
Claims Tribunal & Anor

JUDGMENT
1 At all material times, the plaintiff has carried on the business of, inter alia, an auctioneer. On Friday, 11 October 1996, it conducted a boat auction at Birkenhead Point Marina. One of the lots listed for auction was a 25ft Bertram GRP Flybridge Cruiser known as “Scott Free”. It was listed under instructions from a finance company (Esanda Limited). There is evidence that Terms and Conditions of Auction and/or Sale were on display. These identified the plaintiff as agent of the Vendor. A Buyer’s Identification form was signed by the second defendant. It also identified the plaintiff as an auctioneer acting as agent for the Vendor. The second defendant was the successful bidder for the boat. Subsequently, he paid the purchase price of $16,250 and took delivery of the boat.
2 The second defendant contends that the boat turned out to be not in a seaworthy condition, that it required extensive repairs and that it was of less value than what was being represented as the subject of the sale.
3 He purported to make a consumer claim pursuant to section 13 of the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 (the Act) against the plaintiff seeking a money order for $19,527.75. He used the prescribed Claim Form. The Claim Form itself makes mention of an implied warranty that goods are of merchantable quality and are fit for the purpose for which they are sold. Annexed to that Form is a document headed “Details of the Claim”. It refers to an advertisement and alleges that certain representations were made (see paragraphs 2-4 and 6). It also contains, inter alia, the following:-
“16. Pickles Auctions engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising and conduct. Through such conduct Pickles Auctions induced me to purchase a broken down, not seaworthy vessel.
17. Pickles Auctions also made a fraudulent and/or in the alternative a negligent misrepresentation over the telephone in regards to the age of the vessel.”
4 The “Details of the Claim” contain a claim for a total sum of $19,527.75 (which is made…

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.

Continue reading Pickles v Consumer Claims Tribunal

Details

AGLC: Pickles v Consumer Claims Tribunal [1999] NSWSC 104
Case: [1999] NSWSC 104
Decision Date: 23 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pickles v Consumer Claims Tribunal involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Pickles, and the Consumer Claims Tribunal, which was the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action against the Tribunal regarding its jurisdiction to hear a consumer claim he had filed. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr. Pickles argued that the Tribunal had no authority to hear his consumer claim, which related to a defective product he had purchased.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the jurisdictional scope of the Consumer Claims Tribunal and whether it had the authority to hear the plaintiff's consumer claim. The court was tasked with interpreting relevant legislative provisions and determining whether the Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the dispute fell within the Tribunal's purview under the applicable consumer protection laws.

The court held that the Consumer Claims Tribunal did indeed have jurisdiction over the consumer claim filed by Mr. Pickles. In reaching this conclusion, the court meticulously examined the statutory framework governing the Tribunal's powers. It found that the Tribunal was empowered to hear claims that aligned with the objectives of the consumer protection legislation. The court emphasised that the dispute at hand involved a product defect, which was a matter within the Tribunal's remit. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Pickles' challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the Consumer Claims Tribunal, confirming its authority to hear the consumer claim. The court's decision underscored the importance of interpreting legislative provisions accurately to ensure that the Tribunal could effectively fulfil its role in consumer dispute resolution.

Orders