Lam v Rallis Timber Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 138

Lam v Rallis Timber Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 138

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant made a consumer claim within s 79E of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW). The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that the cypress pine timber supplied and used for the kitchen floor was of unacceptable quality: there was no evidence that the timber was second hand, no evidence that its qualities were abnormal for cypress pine, no evidence of non-compliance with the Industry Standard, many photographs depicted returned timber, there was no evidence that the kitchen floor was unsafe, and the Harmer statement did not address timber quality. Accordingly, no failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL (NSW) was established, but the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Hearing and Reserved Decision
Outcome
The respondent was ordered to pay $580.00 to the applicant immediately and the proceedings were otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['acceptable Quality Guarantee' 'supply of Goods' 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction' 'remedies for Failure to Comply With Consumer Guarantees']
['consumer Law' 'fair Trading'] ['acceptable Quality Guarantee' 'supply of Goods' 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction' 'remedies for Failure to Comply With Consumer Guarantees']

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 / Final Hearing and Reserved Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the proceedings' 'Whether the cypress pine timber which was supplied by the respondent failed to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality under the ACL (NSW)' 'What is the appropriate remedy for any failure by the respondent to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality under the ACL (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant made a consumer claim within s 79E of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW). The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that the cypress pine timber supplied and used for the kitchen floor was of unacceptable quality: there was no evidence that the timber was second hand, no evidence that its qualities were abnormal for cypress pine, no evidence of non-compliance with the Industry Standard, many photographs depicted returned timber, there was no evidence that the kitchen floor was unsafe, and the Harmer statement did not address timber quality. Accordingly, no failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL (NSW) was established, but the...

Court Disposition

The respondent was ordered to pay $580.00 to the applicant immediately and the proceedings were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the sum of $580.00 to the applicant immediately' 'The proceedings are otherwise dismissed']