NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Heslop v Goway Travel Pty Limited [2019] NSWCATCD 84 Hearing dates: 8 July 2019 Date of orders: 8 August 2019 Decision date: 08 August 2019 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G.J. Sarginson, Senior Member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. If there is an application for costs, the respondent is notify the Tribunal and the applicant in writing by 14 days from the date of this decision that the respondent is making a costs application and include a proposed timetable for written submissions. If a costs application is made, the Tribunal will issue further directions to the parties regarding each party filing and serving written submissions on the issue of costs. 3. Any submissions on the issue of costs are to include whether or not the respective parties consent to the issue of costs being determined on the papers. In accordance with s 50 (2) of the NCAT Act, the Tribunal may determine the issue of costs on the papers and without further oral hearing. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW---Breach of contract---Breach of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW)---Whether loss established---Applicable principles---No loss established Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Rules 2014 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Clark v Macourt [2013] HCA 56 (2013) 253 CLR 1 Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54 (1991) 174 CLR 64 Curtis v Potter & Co Pty Ltd t/as The African Safari Co [2016] NSWCATAP 196 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48; (1992) 175 CLR 353 McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67 Ng v Filmlock Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 389; (2014) 88 NSWLR 389 Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363 Sacks v Hammoud [2016] NSWCATAP 225 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8 (2009) 236 CLR 272 Tang t/as Better Aquariums v Karatasoulis [2018] NSWCATAP 140 Upton v Martin & Stein Antiques Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 228 Texts Cited: Carter on Contract (looseleaf); Lexis Advance Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Heslop (Applicant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate