Stephanie Pease v David Mark Lennie and Febriani Nunik Lennie both t/as Localesia [2014] NSWCATCD 163

Stephanie Pease v David Mark Lennie and Febriani Nunik Lennie both t/as Localesia [2014] NSWCATCD 163

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the goods were supplied in New South Wales. The staircase was represented as brand new and undamaged but the photographs showed extensive rust and other defects amounting to major problems, including potential future safety issues. Because the defects were major, the applicant was entitled to keep the staircase and claim compensation for repair costs; it was reasonable to award compensation where the repair costs were significant but not more than the purchase price and returning or disassembling the staircase would impose significant cost.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; respondents ordered to pay compensation to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'defective Goods' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'compensation for Repair Costs']
['consumer Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'defective Goods' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'compensation for Repair Costs']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the consumer claim.' 'Whether the custom made staircase had major or minor defects.' 'What remedy or orders should be made for the defective staircase.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the goods were supplied in New South Wales. The staircase was represented as brand new and undamaged but the photographs showed extensive rust and other defects amounting to major problems, including potential future safety issues. Because the defects were major, the applicant was entitled to keep the staircase and claim compensation for repair costs; it was reasonable to award compensation where the repair costs were significant but not more than the purchase price and returning or disassembling the staircase would impose significant cost.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; respondents ordered to pay compensation to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondents are to pay the applicant the sum of $3,200.00 on or before 25 September 2014.']