Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rebekah Wright v MWT Institute Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 26 Hearing dates: 29 January 2014 Decision date: 14 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: J Lennard, General Member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the application, and the applications are made out of time, s7(4) of the Consumer Claims Act applies. 2. The respondent's name MWT, is amended to MWT Institute Pty Ltd. NCAT notes that the applicant was not present and that several attempts to contact the applicant on the number supplied were unsuccessful. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rebekah Wright (applicant) MWT Institute Pty Ltd (respondent) File Number(s): GEN 13/66997 reasons for decision APPLICATION 1The application was filed on 29 December 2013. The application expressly sought an order to refix or replace faulty goods would withdraw return goods to the value of $2000. Upon reading the file the member determined that the application was made in relation to an alleged failure by MWT Institute to provide online teaching services, including but not limited to a failure to grant an extension to the applicant of 12 months to complete her studies. 2The applicant was enrolled in the MWT Institute as a part-time student for the diploma of events course on 1 September 2010. The end date for the course was 26 August 2012. Hearings and representation 3This matter was heard 29 January 2014. 4The applicant resides at Tocumwal in southern New South Wales, the respondent is located in South Yarra Victoria. 5The parties were not able to attend in person and the hearing was to be conducted by phone. The hearing was scheduled for 11:45 AM. 6The Tribunal called the number provided by the applicant at noon and again at three minutes past noon on each occasion the Tribunal was connected to a recorded message advising there was no service. The Tribunal then call the number provided by the respondents 12:05 PM and at 12:07 PM and was connected to a voicemail message. The Tribunal at 12:08 PM on 1-300 number provided on the letterhead from the respondent and was eventually successfully connected to the appropriate representative. After a brief conversation with the representative of the respondent and while that representative was still on the line, the Tribunal called the number provided by the applicant for a third time and effort to organise a conference call. At 12:14 PM the Tribunal was again connected to a recorded message advising there was no service at the applicant's phone number. 7A perusal of the file indicated that the applicant had been served with a notice of the hearing; no other phone number was recorded in the file. The Tribunal, having satisfied itself that the applicant had been duly served, determined that, in the light of the issues regarding its jurisdiction, the interests of justice required that the matter be proceeded with. Jurisdiction of Tribunal 8The tribunal had before it the application which referred to ongoing problems relating to her inability to complete the online courses. The application did not reveal a cause of action. 9The respondents had provided a written response. That response consisted of a brief statement and a copy of the log of contacts between the respondent and the applicant. In particular the tribunal notes: (a)that the applicant was aware that the completion date for the courses 26 August 2012; (b)that the applicant received recognition for prior learning and was awarded six units of credit on 22 July 201; (c)11 April 2012 the applicant was advised by the respondent that there was a minimum of one unit per month to be completed; (d)that the applicant did not complete any unit of study for the course; (e)that on 15 August 2013 students were advised of the curriculum change which required all students to complete the diploma of events course by 9 December 2013. 10The evidence gave rise to 2 issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal: (a)the MWT Institute was in Melbourne and courses and information were provided from Melbourne. The representative of the respondent gave oral evidence that the applicant was resident in Victoria at the time of enrolment in the course; and (b)the applicant enrolled in the course on 1 September 2010; that she failed to complete any unit of work within the course which was in any event to be completed by 26 August 2012. While the application fails to reveal a specific cause of action, it does refer to a number of instances of alleged unsatisfactory provision of services from the time the applicant enrolled. 11The application falls under the Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW). That Act provides at section 7 that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any consumer claim brought before it except as otherwise provided by this section. The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim only if services to which the claim relates were supplied in New South Wales or a contract or agreement to which the claim relates contemplated that the goods or services would be supplied in New South Wales. Further that Act provides that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear a consumer claim if the cause of action giving rise to the claim first accrued more than three years before the date on which the claim was lodged. 12The Tribunal determined, taking into account the evidence before it, that the services the online provision of enrolment in the course of diploma of events were supplied in Melbourne and therefore the applicant ought to properly bring this application in the appropriate Victorian court or Tribunal. 13The application was lodged on 29 December 2013 a period exceeding three years from the date of enrolment. The application does not reveal a specific cause of action however it appears from the application that the applicant has been dissatisfied with the service from the beginning of her enrolment. Taking into account the evidence before it, the Tribunal has determined that the cause of action first accrued more than three years before 29 December 2013. 14The Tribunal therefore formed the view that, pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer Claims Act, it did not have jurisdiction to determine the application. Therefore the Tribunal made orders dismissing the application. J Lennard General Member Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales 14 March 2014 I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 May 2014