Strong Movers v Dunn

[2023] QCATA 55

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Strong Movers v Dunn [2023] QCATA 55

PARTIES:

STRONG MOVERS

(appellant)

v

JASON DUNN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL086-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – CONTRACT–TERMS AND CONDITION – FINDINGS OF FACT -where appellant and respondent entered into a contract for the removal of house furniture – where quote provided and accepted – where terms and conditions not provided to the respondent – where furniture damaged in transit – where damages assessed under the Australian Consumer Law – whether reference to terms and conditions on website sufficient to bind the parties – whether breach of contract – whether assessment of damages reasonable – whether any basis to disturb findings of fact.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s142(3)(a)(i)

Oceanic sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165

CLR 197

Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22

Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The appellant carries on business as furniture removalists. In early 2021 the Respondent contracted with the Appellant to move their furniture from their house in Cleveland to a short term storage facility and then to their new home in Redland Bay in April 2021. The quoted cost for the job was $7,258.50 which is reflected in the quote provided to the respondent dated 18 January 2021. There were some adjustments to the final price as reflected in the Job Sheet dated 7 April 2021, signed by the respondent when the furniture delivery was completed at about 8:30pm that evening.

2. Although the respondent signed the Job Sheet, he did so reluctantly because of a threat that the furniture would be loaded back onto the truck if not signed and paid for. The signature, accepting the goods had been checked and that nothing was missing, on the Job Sheet has the notation “no do not agree…1 tall boy missing”.

3. The following day, the respondent noticed that some of the furniture had been damaged, either in storage or during the move. As the damaged furniture was new, they sought some compensation from the appellant. A solicitor was engaged to write a letter of demand[1] which set out in some detail particulars of the respondent’s complaint and claimed $8,080.91 damages for the lost and damaged items. Not only was their reliance on the general law, but also s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law, being schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

   [1]Annexed to the Minor Civil Dispute Application filed 16 June 2021

4. The appellant denied any liability…