Webb v Flight Centre Travel Group Limited
Case
•
[2021] NSWCATCD 31
•13 May 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Webb v Flight Centre Travel Group Limited [2021] NSWCATCD 31
[2021] NSWCATCD 31
13 May 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Webb took a holiday package from Flight Centre Travel Group Limited (the Respondent). The holiday package included flights from Australia to the United Kingdom and accommodation in the United Kingdom. The package was arranged by the Respondent and included services provided by third parties. The Respondent collected the payment for the package from the Applicant. The Applicant then discovered that the airline had cancelled the flights. The Applicant sought a refund of the price paid for the holiday package. The Respondent refused to provide a refund and instead offered the Applicant a credit for the same amount. The Applicant took the matter to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) and then to the Australian Competition Tribunal (the Tribunal).
The Applicant argued that the Respondent breached the consumer guarantee as to due care and skill under the Australian Consumer Law by failing to ensure that the flights were not cancelled. The Respondent argued that it was not liable because the cancellation of the flights was caused by the airline, which was not under the control of the Respondent. The Respondent also argued that the Applicant was not entitled to a refund because he had not suffered any loss.
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not suffered any loss because he had not actually travelled and therefore had not suffered any inconvenience or disappointment as a result of the cancellation of the flights. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondent had offered the Applicant a credit for the same amount that he had paid for the holiday package. The Tribunal held that the Respondent was not liable for the breach of the consumer guarantee as to due care and skill because the cancellation of the flights was caused by the airline, which was not under the control of the Respondent. The Tribunal also held that the Respondent was not required to provide a refund to the Applicant because he had not suffered any loss.
The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application for a refund and noted that the Respondent had offered the Applicant a credit for the same amount that he had paid for the holiday package. The credit was available to the Applicant for 24 months from the date of having made the payment and the tickets were transferrable.
The Applicant argued that the Respondent breached the consumer guarantee as to due care and skill under the Australian Consumer Law by failing to ensure that the flights were not cancelled. The Respondent argued that it was not liable because the cancellation of the flights was caused by the airline, which was not under the control of the Respondent. The Respondent also argued that the Applicant was not entitled to a refund because he had not suffered any loss.
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not suffered any loss because he had not actually travelled and therefore had not suffered any inconvenience or disappointment as a result of the cancellation of the flights. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondent had offered the Applicant a credit for the same amount that he had paid for the holiday package. The Tribunal held that the Respondent was not liable for the breach of the consumer guarantee as to due care and skill because the cancellation of the flights was caused by the airline, which was not under the control of the Respondent. The Tribunal also held that the Respondent was not required to provide a refund to the Applicant because he had not suffered any loss.
The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application for a refund and noted that the Respondent had offered the Applicant a credit for the same amount that he had paid for the holiday package. The credit was available to the Applicant for 24 months from the date of having made the payment and the tickets were transferrable.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consumer guarantees
-
Supply of services
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Salloum v Charles Golding t/as Golden Motors
[2016] NSWCATCD 72