JUDGMENT No. wou, 2S. IN _THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G205 of 1993 ) ) GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LEONIE CAMERON Applicant AND QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED Respondent CORAM: BEAUMONT J. CORRIGENDUM Amendment to Reasons for Judgment (No. 2) (Findings of material primary facts with respect to the dealings between Dr. Thomas and the respondent). Date of Judgment should be amended from "12 April 1994" to 12 April 1995" aS feet Acting Associate to Beaumont J. 31 May 1995 FEDERAL COURT 0: AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL TRY 5th June 1995 | | | Please note, judgment number 1084-94 has now. been changed | to 356-95. ot ' | Judgments Clerk IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION f ~ me ; NOT FOR LRSTRIBUTION JUDGMENT No. .K SH 729-4... No. G205 of 1993 BETWEEN: LEQNIE CAMERON Applicant AND QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMIT Respondent RECEIVED CORAM: Beaumont J. 18 APR 1995 DATE: 12 April 1994 eR NAUSTRALIAY PRINCIPAL REGISTRY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No. 2) Findings of material primary facts with respect to the: dealings between Dr. Thomas and the respondent Dr Thomas was called. In his case, I make the following findings: In October 1992, Dr Thomas, who is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Nottingham School of Education, made arrangements with a travel agent (Andres Holidays Limited) to travel to Australia via Bangkok, booking an economy class ticket with the respondent. At that time, he did not request a non-smoking seat because he was not aware that it was possible to make a seat reservation before checking in. On 12 March 1993, Dr Thomas checked-in at Heathrow Airport approximately three hours before his flight to Sydney. He requested a non-smoking seat. The staff told him that it "won't be a problem". Upon inspection of his boarding pass he noticed that the seat number was quite high. He inquired of the check-in staff whether the seat allocation was non-smoking and was informed that it was. {I am not satisfied on the evidence that Dr Thomas told the check-in attendant at Heathrow that he had an asthmatic condition. This was not mentioned in his letter of complaint dated 15 March 1993 to the respondent (see below).] Once on board the aircraft, Dr Thomas sat in his allocated seat (seat 71H) in the non smoking economy class. Dr Thomas became concerned that he was close to the smoking section. Shortly after take-off, both passengers sitting on his right hand side started smoking. He raised the matter with a flight attendant and informed the. attendant that he was an asthmatic. The attendant replied that Dr Thomas would have to remain in his seat as the flight was full. For the duration of the flight to Bangkok Dr Thomas was severely distressed. On the subsequent Bangkok to Hong Kong sector Dr Thomas was allocated a non-smoking economy class seat. On 15 March 1993, Dr Thomas wrote a letter of complaint to the respondent, and received a reply dated 17 March 1993. On 18 March 1993 Dr Thomas wrote a further letter of complaint to the respondent' and received a reply on 24 March 1993. Dr Thomas wrote another letter to the respondent on 31 March 1993. On 5. April 1993, Dr Thomas and his wife flew from Hong Kong to Sydney. During the time Dr Thomas was staying in Sydney, he was examined by a doctor. On 15 April 1993, Dr Thomas and his wife attended at the check-in counter at Sydney airport for their return flight to London. They were informed by the staff that they had been upgraded to the business class non-smoking section. They were allocated seats 17A and 17B. Dr Thomas and his wife disembarked at Bangkok airport and upon boarding the flight were reallocated to seats 23A and 23B. During the flight people in seats directly behind Dr Thomas were smoking. Dr Thomas raised the matter with the flight attendant and inquired whether he and his wife were in the smoking section. The flight attendant replied "No you are not". Dr Thomas made further inquiries and the attendant said he would "check it out". The flight attendant returned and informed Dr Thomas and his wife that they were in fact in smoking seats. Dr Thomas said that as "an asthmatic I cannot endure another 11 hour flight in a smoked filled environment". The flight attendant asked the flight director to speak to Dr Thomas. The flight director explained that a family had been split up during the flight from Sydney to Bangkok and that a young girl member of the 'family, who was an asthmatic, had been allocated a smoking seat; and that in order to resolve the situation, Dr Thomas and his wife had been moved down since they were upgrades. Dr Thomas said that during the flight he "had difficulty: breathing". On 19 April 1993, Dr Thomas wrote a further letter of complaint to the respondent. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Beaumont. . Associate /bee- Dated: 12 April 1995