John v JB HI-FI Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 29

John v JB HI-FI Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 29

The First and Fourth Applicants did not attend and, in any event, the First, Third and Fourth Applicants were not consumers because the Second and Third Applicants conceded that the Television was purchased solely by the Second Applicant. The Second Applicant's claim also failed because the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that the purported JB Hi-Fi tax invoice and Sony tax invoice were not genuine, found the alleged store manager email not genuine, and was not persuaded as to the authenticity or reliability of the Westpac material. The Second Applicant therefore did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he purchased the Television from the Respondent or that the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Sale of Goods / Hearing of Application
Outcome
The Application of each of the Applicants is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['defective Television' 'whether Respondent Was Supplier' 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction' 'authenticity of Purchase and Repair Documents']
['consumer Law' 'sale of Goods'] ['defective Television' 'whether Respondent Was Supplier' 'consumer Claim Jurisdiction' 'authenticity of Purchase and Repair Documents']

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 Concerning Sale of Goods / Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Television was supplied by the Respondent and, if so, to which Applicant.' 'Whether the First, Third and Fourth Applicants were consumers within the meaning of s79D of the Fair Trading Act 1987.' 'Whether the Second Applicant proved that he purchased the Television from the Respondent on 20 June 2016 for $2301.00.' "Whether the purported tax invoice, Sony tax invoice, email from the Respondent's store manager, Westpac email and credit card statement were genuine or reliable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The First and Fourth Applicants did not attend and, in any event, the First, Third and Fourth Applicants were not consumers because the Second and Third Applicants conceded that the Television was purchased solely by the Second Applicant. The Second Applicant's claim also failed because the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that the purported JB Hi-Fi tax invoice and Sony tax invoice were not genuine, found the alleged store manager email not genuine, and was not persuaded as to the authenticity or reliability of the Westpac material. The Second Applicant therefore did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he purchased the Television from the Respondent or that the...

Court Disposition

The Application of each of the Applicants is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Application of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Applicants is dismissed.']