Susan Couch v BMD Removals Pty Limited [2014] NSWCATCD 116

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Susan Couch v BMD Removals Pty Limited [2014] NSWCATCD 116 Hearing dates: 11 April 2014 Decision date: 08 July 2014 Before: A McMurran, General Member Decision: 1.The application for compensation is dismissed. Having considered the material placed before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied to the civil standard of proof, that the grounds required to make the orders sought have been established. Catchwords: Contract, removalist, provision of services, negligence, lost and damaged goods and compensation Legislation Cited: Consumer Claims Act 1998 ("the Act") Category: Principal judgment Parties: Susan Couch (applicant) BMD Removals Pty Limited (respondent) File Number(s): GEN 13/54045

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Application 1 The applicant filed an application on 17 October 2013 claiming: (i) Compensation in a sum of $30,000.00 comprising damage to goods for loss and replacement and repairs to be carried out; and (ii) An order not to pay $2,500.00; and (iii) The applicant also sought to claim a total of $25,500.00 for "related costs" including extra cleaning and lost income and hearing preparation. 2 The damages claimed as compensation were in order for the respondent to:- (i) Fix or replace faulty goods, or deliver or return goods to the value of $28,000.00 including missing items; and (ii) Complete work or services to the value of $2,000.00 for damage to a television, dining chairs, concrete driveway, fence panel and internal walls. 3 At the hearing the applicant elected not to press the claims for "related costs", which left the matter within the monetary limit of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. 4 The matter was first listed at Newcastle on 22 November 2013, which date was adjourned to 25 November 2013 where both parties appeared by telephone. On 25 November 2013, the parties were ordered to exchange documents. The applicant complied with those directions by 9 December 2013. The respondent did not. 5 The matter was relisted for a directions hearing on 16 January 2014 for 30 minutes. Both parties again appeared at the directions hearing by telephone and orders were made extending the time for compliance for the exchange of documents. The applicant complied with the extended timetable. The respondent did not and produced no documents. The matter came on for hearing at Gosford on 11 April 2014 where the applicant appeared by telephone and the respondent in person by Mr Mark Walker, who was granted leave to represent the respondent as its director.