Susan Couch v BMD Removals Pty Limited [2014] NSWCATCD 116

Susan Couch v BMD Removals Pty Limited [2014] NSWCATCD 116

The Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim because the applicant did not prove to the ordinary civil standard that the respondent breached the contract or acted negligently. The applicant's inventories of lost, damaged or left behind goods were unilateral, not verified by the respondent, and unreliable in circumstances where the applicant packed the boxes, the parties had no agreed inventory or inspection, there was confusion about what was to be moved, and at least some goods were to be left behind or given away. The Tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence where inconsistent and was satisfied that the respondent took reasonable care of the goods once loaded. However, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim for Compensation Arising From Removalist Services / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The application for compensation was dismissed; the applicant was not liable for additional charges of $2,500.00; claims for costs and outlays were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['removalist Services' 'lost and Damaged Goods' 'consumer Compensation' 'onus of Proof' 'reasonable Care of Goods in Transit' 'costs of Self Represented Litigants']
['contract Law' 'consumer Law' 'negligence' 'bailment'] ['removalist Services' 'lost and Damaged Goods' 'consumer Compensation' 'onus of Proof' 'reasonable Care of Goods in Transit' 'costs of Self Represented Litigants']

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 for Compensation Arising From Removalist Services / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent breached the removalist contract by failing to carry, securely transport, or deliver the applicant's goods." "Whether the respondent negligently damaged, lost, left behind, abandoned, or gave away the applicant's goods without authority." 'Whether the applicant proved the identity, condition and value of goods allegedly lost, damaged or left behind to the civil standard of proof.' 'Whether the applicant was liable for additional charges of $2,500.00 beyond the fixed contract price.' 'Whether the applicant should recover costs and expenses of preparing and attending the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the compensation claim because the applicant did not prove to the ordinary civil standard that the respondent breached the contract or acted negligently. The applicant's inventories of lost, damaged or left behind goods were unilateral, not verified by the respondent, and unreliable in circumstances where the applicant packed the boxes, the parties had no agreed inventory or inspection, there was confusion about what was to be moved, and at least some goods were to be left behind or given away. The Tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence where inconsistent and was satisfied that the respondent took reasonable care of the goods once loaded. However, the...

Court Disposition

The application for compensation was dismissed; the applicant was not liable for additional charges of $2,500.00; claims for costs and outlays were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's claims for loss, damage or goods left behind and the value thereof are dismissed." 'No additional charges in the amount of $2,500.00 should be levied against the applicant.' "The application for the applicant's costs and outlays is dismissed." "The respondent is liable for its own outlays in...