Taherzadeh-Desovski v Kresta Blinds Ltd

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Taherzadeh-Desovski v Kresta Blinds Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 2

Hearing dates:

31 January 2022

Date of orders:

8 February 2022 [amended 14 February 2022]

Decision date:

08 February 2022

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

R Alkadamani, Senior Member

Decision:

Pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, orders published on 8 February 2022 are amended on 14 February 2022 to read as follows:

1. The respondent pay the applicant $3,470.00 within 28 days.

2. The applicant is to permit the respondent to remove the curtains the subject of the proceedings from her home.

3. The respondent is to remove the curtains the subject of the proceedings from the applicant’s home, at no cost to the applicant, within 28 days of these orders at a time mutually convenient to the parties.

Catchwords:

CONTRACTS – Goods and services – Buyer seeks refund - Delay in delivery – Whether delivery of goods or services within reasonable time

Legislation Cited:

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Commonwealth)

Fair Trading Act 1997 (NSW)

Sale of Good Act 1923 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196

Wilson v Winnicott [2021] NSWCATAP 211

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Pariya Taherzadeh-Desovski (Applicant)
Kresta Blinds Ltd (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (Self-reresented)
U Yang and D Ma (Respondent)

File Number(s):

GEN 21/46519

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application for an order that the respondent, Kresta Blinds Ltd (Kresta), refund to the applicant, Ms P Taherzadeh-Desovski, the price paid by the applicant for curtains purchased from Kresta.

Evidence

Evidence of the applicant

2. Ms Taherzadeh-Desovski relied on oral evidence given during the hearing on 31 January 2022 and documents that she had filed and served in the proceedings. These documents comprised numerous email communications between the parties, documents recording the transaction such as order forms and payment requests, photos of the curtains and explanatory documents explaining the events.

Evidence of the respondent

3. Kresta relied on oral evidence given by Ms Wang and Mr Ma, employees of Kresta and a bundle of documents containing communications between the parties and documents recording the transaction and some photos.

Issues

4. The only real issue between the parties is whether Ms Taherzadeh-Desovski is entitled to a refund or whether Kresta should be permitted to replace the curtains that Ms Taherzadeh-Desovski purchased from Kresta.

Findings

5. There is very little dispute as to the facts in this matter.

6. The Tribunal makes the following findings.

7. On 23 March 2021 Ms Taherzadeh-Desovski placed an order with Kresta for two curtains. One curtain was for her bedroom and one curtain was for a home office. The total price was $3,470.00. There was also a small surcharge for credit card payments.

8. On 25 March 2021 confirmed that it had received payment of $1,752.35 and that the balance outstanding was $1,735.00. On that date Kresta also sent an email to Ms Taherzadeh-Desovski informing her…