Stokes v Harvey Norman Ltd

[2013] QCATA 51

CITATION: Stokes v Harvey Norman Ltd [2013] QCATA 51

PARTIES:	Mrs Laurie Stokes (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Harvey Norman Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL239 -12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 25 February 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.  Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS: MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The appeal tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mrs Stokes bought a lounge suite from Harvey Norman Ltd. On delivery, Mrs Stokes discovered that the suite was too big for her room so she asked Harvey Norman to take it back. Harvey Norman did so, and refunded $2,191 of the $4,300 purchase price. Mrs Stokes wanted Harvey Norman to refund the whole purchase price. An adjudicator dismissed her claim.

2. Mrs Stokes wants to appeal that decision. She says that the lounge was not custom made and that Harvey Norman’s own invoice limits the cancellation fee to 20%. She objects to the learned Adjudicator accusing her of lying. She says that the decision is not fair.

1. Because this is an appeal from a minor civil dispute, Mrs Stokes must seek leave to appeal. The tribunal may grant leave if the dispute raises a question of general importance and the public would benefit from a decision on that question. It may also grant leave if Mrs Stokes shows a reasonably arguable case of error and a reasonable prospect that she will obtain substantive relief if the error is corrected.  

1. A decision is not unfair simply because a party is not happy with it. Mrs Stokes must point to a defect in the process, or an error, to show that the hearing, or the decision, was unfair. She has not done so and I can find nothing in the transcript that supports a claim that the learned Adjudicator acted unfairly.

1. The learned Adjudicator noted a concession from Mrs Stokes that she lied to the Harvey Norman representative by telling him she would abide by an oral agreement to accept a 50% refund[1]. That finding comes from an exchange between Mrs Stokes and the learned Adjudicator[2]. Mrs Stokes might not like the finding but it is open on the facts.

   [1]        Transcript page 15 lines 32 - 36

   [2]        Transcript page 10 lines 41 - 42

1. Mrs Stokes wants a refund of 80% of the purchase price based on the tax invoice that states, “GOODS ORDERED IN AND CANCELLED will incur a 20% cancellation fee”.

1. Mrs Stokes did not cancel her order. Harvey Norman filled the order by delivering the suite that she ordered. The time for cancellation - before the suite was delivered - was gone.

1. The tax invoice also records “No refund or exchange unless required by Statutory Law.” The suite was not defective. Harvey Norman did not give Mrs Stokes any advice about the suite’s suitability. The suite was unsuitable because Mrs Stokes did not accurately estimate its size and impact. Harvey Norman had no obligation to give Mrs Stokes any refund.

1. There is no question of general importance that should be determined by the appeals tribunal; there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Adjudicator was in error; there is no reasonable prospect of substantive relief on appeal; and there is no evidence that a substantial injustice will result if leave is not granted. Leave to appeal should be refused.