Miranda Corporation Pty Ltd v GC Leasing Sydney Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 46

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Miranda Corporation Pty Ltd v GC Leasing Sydney Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 46 Hearing dates: 1 July 2021 Decision date: 16 July 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: B Shipp, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Applicant's claim is dismissed. 2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent $6330.38 being the balance due under the lease agreement entered into on 3 July 2018 on or before 15 August 2021 (or as otherwise agreed between the parties). Catchwords: CONTRACTS — Breach of contract — Consequences of breach of Australian Consumer Law or contract — Lease agreement — Whether agency relationship — Meaning of "services" — Whether breach of Australian Consumer Law or contract — To whom the consumer guarantees attach Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Australian Consumer Law Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Miranda Corporation Pty Ltd (Applicant) GC Leasing Sydney Pty Ltd (Respondent) File Number(s): GEN 20/48072 Publication restriction: NIL

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background and Application 1. The Applicant is the operator of a business known as Waratah Funerals. Mr Lionel Miranda is the principal of the applicant, and he represented the Applicant in these proceedings. 2. In October 2018, the Applicant negotiated with Optus ("the supplier") to supply and install a phone system for his business. On 3 July 2018, the Applicant entered into a contract with the supplier ("the supply contract") for the payment of a fixed sum for the provision of services over a 5 year period. 3. Mr Miranda alleges the phone system failed after a short period of time, and he arranged with the supplier to cancel the contract and to return the equipment. 4. On 3 July 2018, the Applicant also entered into a Equipment Lease Agreement ('the lease agreement") with the Respondent to these proceedings (also known by its trading name "Grenke"). By this agreement, the Applicant agrees to pay $154.98 per month plus GST for a term of 60 months for the lease of the equipment by the Respondent. Mr Miranda states he only ever dealt with the representative of the supplier Optus, and was unaware of the existence or involvement of the Respondent until asked to sign the lease agreement by the supplier. 5. Following the failure of the equipment, Mr Miranda states that he returned the equipment to an address in Melbourne as instructed by the supplier. He then received a full refund of all monies paid to the supplier. It was only about 6 months later that he realised that the Respondent was continuing to direct debit his account. Attempts to contact the Respondent to explain the circumstances and have the payments sopped proved fruitless. The direct debits to the Respondent continued until August 2020 when Mr Miranda directed his bank to cease the direct debits. The Respondent then sought to enforce the terms of the lease contract, seeking payment of the balance of the amount owing. 6. In November 2020, Mr Miranda applied for an order that he be reimbursed the amount debited by the Respondent.