Cameron, L. v. Qantas Airways Ltd [1994] FCA 905

JUDGMENT No. sua OS. hth

T: REGISTRY ) No. G205 of 1993 GENERAL DIVISION ) ETW : LEONTE CAMERON Applicant AND: Ss W, EI Respondent

CORAM: BEAUMONT J

DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 1994

REASON, JUDGMENT (NO.1

(FINDINGS OF MATERIAL PRIMARY FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEALINGS BETWEEN THE PARTIES)

INTRODUCTION

In the amended statement of claim filed on 11 February 1994 in these group proceedings, the applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in unconscionable and/or misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the provisions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Further, or in the alternative, it is alleged that each of the group members suffered loss or damage occasioned by negligence and/or breach of duty on the part of the respondent. It is claimed, inter alia, that the respondent engaged in the following specific conduct, which is said to be common to all

group members:

(1) That the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that the smoking of cigarettes and other

tobacco products on board Qantas aircraft was a

(2)

(3)

health hazard in that smoke circulating in the air in Qantas aircraft could cause or be a contributing factor in causing certain detrimental physical effects (para. 4).

That the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that allocation of seating designated smoking oer non-smoking was not effective to prevent cigarette smoke generated from persons smoking in a designated smoking zone also being dispersed into the air circulating in the area of seats designated non-smoking, and that group members, wherever seated, were exposed to such smoke (paras. 5, 12). That the respondent has implemented a policy in the allocation of seating in Qantas aircraft such that ticket holders or prospective passengers can request to be seated in a designated non-smoking zone either upon or prior to presenting at the airport for seat allocation and/or a boarding pass; that upon making such a request group members were informed that they have been or will be allocated a seat designated non-smoking. In the alternative, that group members were informed that they could not be allocated a designated non-smoking seat and only could be allocated a seat in a designated smoking zone; further, certain passengers receiving a _ boarding pass at a later time may be allocated a seat ina non-smoking zone, even though they did not