Chambers v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 52

Chambers v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 52

The refund term was unfair as it caused significant imbalance, was not reasonably necessary for the respondent, caused financial detriment to the applicant, and was not transparent. The applicant was entitled to a refund under both consumer law and the respondent's own policy regarding overpayment.

Parties
Applicant: Gavin Chambers; Respondent: Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Consumer Contract Dispute / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
respondent to pay applicant $1,837.50
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Refund Policy, Standard Form Contract
Consumer Law Contract Unfair Contract Terms Refund Policy Standard Form Contract

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavin Chambers

Applicant

Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Contract Dispute / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refund policy was unfair under the Australian Consumer Law
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to a refund of the course fees paid less the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The refund term was unfair as it caused significant imbalance, was not reasonably necessary for the respondent, caused financial detriment to the applicant, and was not transparent. The applicant was entitled to a refund under both consumer law and the respondent's own policy regarding overpayment.

Court Disposition

respondent to pay applicant $1,837.50

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant $1,837.50