Gold v Cahill [2023] NSWCATCD 77

Gold v Cahill [2023] NSWCATCD 77

On the evidence, Mr Cahill did not provide hairdressing services with due care and skill, breaching Section 60 of the ACL. Ms Gold is entitled to recover from Mr Cahill the reasonable cost of rectifying the damage, less any refunded amount.

Parties
Applicant: Danielle Gold; Respondent: Simon Cahill (aka Simon William)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Respondent to pay applicant compensation
Legal Topics
Breach of Consumer Guarantees, Compensation
Consumer Law Breach of Consumer Guarantees Compensation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Gold

Applicant

Simon Cahill (aka Simon William)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim / Final Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached consumer guarantees under Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law by failing to perform hair treatments/services with due care and skill
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for rectification of the alleged defective services

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, Mr Cahill did not provide hairdressing services with due care and skill, breaching Section 60 of the ACL. Ms Gold is entitled to recover from Mr Cahill the reasonable cost of rectifying the damage, less any refunded amount.

Court Disposition

Respondent to pay applicant compensation

Orders

  • The respondent Simon Cahill aka Simon William is to pay the applicant Danielle Gold $7322.00 immediately.