Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd; Dalton v Morrison [2020] NSWCATCD 2

Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd; Dalton v Morrison [2020] NSWCATCD 2

The Morrison application was not summarily dismissed as not being a consumer claim because, on the authorities, a consumer claim need not be brought against the supplier and Mr Dalton's asserted causative connection with the supply of flight services was not shown to be untenable. However, both applications required determination of claims or defences arising under Commonwealth law, including the Montréal Convention as given force by the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cwth) in the Jetstar application and Commonwealth powers and the Travel Ban Determination in the Morrison application. Deciding those controversies and awarding damages would involve the exercise of judicial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Applications Arising From Cancellation of an International Flight / Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination and Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
The Tribunal declined to deal with applications GEN 20/16147 and GEN 20/17371 because it had no jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['federal Jurisdiction of the Tribunal' 'part 3 a of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'consumer Claim Under the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (nsw)' 'international Carriage by Air' 'montréal Convention Defence' 'summary Dismissal']
['constitutional Law' 'administrative Law' 'consumer Law' 'aviation Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['federal Jurisdiction of the Tribunal' 'part 3 a of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'consumer Claim Under the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (nsw)' 'international Carriage by Air' 'montréal Convention Defence' 'summary Dismissal']

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 Applications Arising From Cancellation of an International Flight / Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination and Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claim against the Prime Minister was a consumer claim within the meaning of Division 1 of Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act, 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether the applications raised a matter requiring the exercise of federal jurisdiction which the Tribunal could not determine.' 'Whether the Tribunal should decline to deal with the applications for want of jurisdiction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Morrison application was not summarily dismissed as not being a consumer claim because, on the authorities, a consumer claim need not be brought against the supplier and Mr Dalton's asserted causative connection with the supply of flight services was not shown to be untenable. However, both applications required determination of claims or defences arising under Commonwealth law, including the Montréal Convention as given force by the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cwth) in the Jetstar application and Commonwealth powers and the Travel Ban Determination in the Morrison application. Deciding those controversies and awarding damages would involve the exercise of judicial...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal declined to deal with applications GEN 20/16147 and GEN 20/17371 because it had no jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['By consent, the name of the respondents in application GEN 20/16147 is amended so that the first respondent is Qantas Airways Ltd and the second respondent is Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd.' 'By consent, pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the name of the respondents\' representative at...