Ueda & anor v Ecruising Pty Ltd and Southern Cross Safaris Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 30
The first respondent's materials and representations made the migration an essential and significant purpose of the tour, and by implication represented that it could be seen at the Serengeti Migration Camp in April, although the evidence showed the migration was never likely to be there at that time. That conduct contravened the Australian Consumer Law and justified compensation for the lost Serengeti Migration Camp portion of the tour. However, the applicants could not recover for disappointment, inconvenience or distress because of the Civil Liability Act 2002, and most other aspects of the tour were substantially provided. The second respondent was not liable for misleading conduct...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Consumer Claim for Compensation Arising From Supply of Travel Services and Alleged Misleading Conduct or Representations / Principal Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Applications allowed in part against both respondents; remainder dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['australian Consumer Law' 'supply of Services' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'misleading Conduct as to Nature of Services' 'quantification of Loss' 'civil Liability Act Restrictions on Damages for Disappointment, Inconvenience and Distress']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim for Compensation Arising From Supply of Travel Services and Alleged Misleading Conduct or Representations / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondents made misleading or deceptive representations that the applicants would see the wildebeest migration during the April 2013 tour.' 'Whether the first respondent failed to exercise the represented level of care and skill by offering the tour during the wettest month of the year without adequate warning.' 'Whether any representations by the second respondent were relied upon before the applicants committed to the tour.' 'Whether losses for disappointment, inconvenience and distress could be awarded having regard to the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'How to quantify compensation for the failure to provide a significant represented purpose of the tour.']
Ratio Decidendi
The first respondent's materials and representations made the migration an essential and significant purpose of the tour, and by implication represented that it could be seen at the Serengeti Migration Camp in April, although the evidence showed the migration was never likely to be there at that time. That conduct contravened the Australian Consumer Law and justified compensation for the lost Serengeti Migration Camp portion of the tour. However, the applicants could not recover for disappointment, inconvenience or distress because of the Civil Liability Act 2002, and most other aspects of the tour were substantially provided. The second respondent was not liable for misleading conduct...
Court Disposition
Applications allowed in part against both respondents; remainder dismissed.
Orders
- ['The first respondent is to pay the applicant Judith Janet Ueda the sum of $2,640.00 on or before 2 April 2014.' 'The first respondent is to pay the applicant Masahiro Ueda the sum of $2,640.00 on or before 2 April 2014.' 'The second respondent is to pay the applicant Judith Janet Ueda the sum of $270.00 on before...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment