Banister v Bailair Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 45

Banister v Bailair Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 45

The application was dismissed because the applicants did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the air conditioner was not of acceptable quality. Their photographs of temperature readings were insufficient without further evidence about operating conditions, no photograph or other proof of an H8 fault was provided, no independent expert evidence supported their case, Pioneer's internal report indicated performance above rated capacity, and repeated inspections by Bailair and Pioneer found no fault.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Supply and Installation of an Air Conditioner and Alleged Breach of Consumer Guarantee of Acceptable Quality / Fresh Hearing After Appeal Remittal; Final Determination of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'supply of Goods and Services' 'claims Against Supplier and Manufacturer' 'refund for Alleged Major Failure' 'onus of Proof']
['consumer Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'supply of Goods and Services' 'claims Against Supplier and Manufacturer' 'refund for Alleged Major Failure' 'onus of Proof']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim Concerning Supply and Installation of an Air Conditioner and Alleged Breach of Consumer Guarantee of Acceptable Quality / Fresh Hearing After Appeal Remittal; Final Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Pioneer air conditioner supplied and installed for the applicants was not of acceptable quality under s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether any failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality amounted to a major failure entitling the applicants to reject the goods and obtain a refund.' 'Whether the applicants proved an entitlement to damages or refund against Bailair Pty Ltd or Pioneer International Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the air conditioner was not of acceptable quality. Their photographs of temperature readings were insufficient without further evidence about operating conditions, no photograph or other proof of an H8 fault was provided, no independent expert evidence supported their case, Pioneer's internal report indicated performance above rated capacity, and repeated inspections by Bailair and Pioneer found no fault.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']