Great Wall Travel Services Pty Ltd v Lai [2021] NSWCATAP 64

Great Wall Travel Services Pty Ltd v Lai [2021] NSWCATAP 64

The legal relationship between the appellant and the respondents was that of agent and principal, with the appellant only providing booking, coordinating, and advisory services. Statutory guarantees under the ACLN did not entitle the respondents to a refund from the appellant for services not provided by the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Appeal / Appeal From Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders below set aside; matter remitted for redetermination
['consumer Law' 'contract Law']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal / Appeal From Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant breached statutory guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)' 'Nature of the legal relationship between the travel agent and the customer' "Whether the travel agent is liable under 'Cancellation by Us' clause" 'Appropriate interpretation of contractual terms relating to cancellations' 'Application of force majeure and government restrictions to contractual obligations']

Ratio Decidendi

The legal relationship between the appellant and the respondents was that of agent and principal, with the appellant only providing booking, coordinating, and advisory services. Statutory guarantees under the ACLN did not entitle the respondents to a refund from the appellant for services not provided by the appellant itself but by third parties. The Tribunal erred in finding the appellant was liable to refund the full amount based on a misinterpretation of the cancellation clauses and the nature of the contractual relationship. There was no sufficient evidence to find the appellant 'cancelled' the tour so as to invoke the 'Cancellation by Us' term. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders below set aside; matter remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The orders of the Tribunal made on 17 September 2020 are set aside.' 'The application is remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law.']