Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd - [2018] QCATA 79

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd [2018] QCATA 79

PARTIES:

BRENDAN RITSON
(appellant)

v

RCL CRUISES LTD T/AS ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL316-17

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO463-17 (Brisbane)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2018

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.   The application for Leave to Appeal is granted.

2.   The Appeal is allowed.

3.   The applicant’s claim for recovery of money from the respondent is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL
– GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – where application for leave to appeal – where appellant booked an ocean cruise – where appellant experienced disturbance because of loud neighbours in an adjoining cabin – where particular purpose of holiday vacation implied – where Tribunal conflated legal concepts of liability and remedy – whether breach of Australian Consumer Law guarantees – whether major breach or otherwise – whether respondent remedied breach of guarantee

Competition and Consumer Law Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law'), s 60, s 6, s 267, s 268

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 13(2)(a)(i)

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 733
Morrison v Chen [2015] QCATA 129

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented by R Lobb and M Lethlean

REASONS FOR DECISION

In December 2016 Mr Ritson and his partner went on an 11-night cruise holiday on one of the respondent company’s ships, leaving Sydney on 11 December 2016 and returning on 22 December 2016. They did not enjoy themselves.
Late the first night on board there was a water leak in their cabin. It was an interior cabin. They were moved to another cabin, this time an exterior cabin with a porthole window.
The new cabin was a large one for families and was essentially two cabins with connecting interior doors (double cabin). Other people were moved into the adjoining connected cabin and they caused Mr Ritson and his partner some distress.
The new neighbours snored loudly, spoke loudly and argued and used offensive language. Mr Ritson complained and the respondent’s officers offered another room and other concessions but Mr Ritson refused the offers.
After making complaint to the respondent when the ship returned Mr Ritson brought an application in the Tribunal initially seeking recovery of all money paid of $3,270.29 for both him and his partner but which was reduced at hearing to just the cost of accommodation, $2,436.78.
The Tribunal determined that the guarantee as to supply of services with due care and skill pursuant to s 60 Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) and the guarantee under s 61 that services will be fit for a particular purpose applied to the contract between Mr Ritson and the respondent. The Tribunal also found, however, that respondent to have responded appropriately to remedy the problems experienced and offered reasonable…

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 Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd [2018] QCATA 79
Case: [2018] QCATA 79
Decision Date: 28 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd, the appellant sought to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which had dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation against the respondent, a cruise line operator, for disturbances experienced on an ocean cruise due to loud noise from an adjoining cabin. The appellant argued that the cruise operator was in breach of Australian Consumer Law guarantees, specifically the guarantee of acceptable quality, and that the disturbances constituted a major breach, entitling the appellant to a remedy. The respondent contended that the court had correctly found that there was no major breach and, in any event, that the disturbances had been remedied.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent breached the Australian Consumer Law guarantees by failing to provide a cruise of acceptable quality, and if so, whether the breach was a major one, and whether the respondent had remedied the breach. The court had to determine whether the implied purpose of the cruise was to provide a peaceful and enjoyable holiday experience, which would have included reasonable quietness, and whether the disturbances from the adjoining cabin constituted a breach of this implied purpose.

The court found that the respondent did breach the Australian Consumer Law guarantees by failing to provide a cruise of acceptable quality, as the disturbances from the adjoining cabin rendered the appellant unable to enjoy the holiday experience as expected. The court noted that the Tribunal had conflated the concepts of liability and remedy, and held that the disturbances constituted a major breach. The court also found that the respondent had not remedied the breach of guarantee, as the measures taken by the respondent were inadequate to address the issue. The appeal was allowed, and the application for leave to appeal was granted.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant's claim for recovery of money from the respondent was dismissed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of cruise operators ensuring that the services provided meet the acceptable quality standards implied by Australian Consumer Law, and the need for cruise operators to take appropriate action to remedy any breaches of those standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for Leave to Appeal is granted.

2. The Appeal is allowed.

3. The applicant’s claim for recovery of money from the respondent 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.

CITATION:	Ritson v RCL Cruises Ltd [2018] QCATA 79
PARTIES:	BRENDAN RITSON (appellant)
v
RCL CRUISES LTD T/AS ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL316-17
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	MCDO463-17 (Brisbane)
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2018
HEARING DATE:	17 April 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Howe
ORDERS:	1. The application for Leave to Appeal is granted. 2. The Appeal is allowed. 3. The applicant’s claim for recovery of money from the respondent is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – where application for leave to appeal – where appellant booked an ocean cruise – where appellant experienced disturbance because of loud neighbours in an adjoining cabin – where particular purpose of holiday vacation implied – where Tribunal conflated legal concepts of liability and remedy – whether breach of Australian Consumer Law guarantees – whether major breach or otherwise – whether respondent remedied breach of guarantee Competition and Consumer Law Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law'), s 60, s 6, s 267, s 268 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 13(2)(a)(i) Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 733 Morrison v Chen [2015] QCATA 129 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented by R Lobb and M Lethlean