Sara Osaulenko v Shellie Goodchild and Abby Clark and Mark Kamphius t/as Equiscene [2014] NSWCATCD 146

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sara Osaulenko v Shellie Goodchild and Abby Clark and Mark Kamphius t/as Equiscene [2014] NSWCATCD 146 Decision date: 31 July 2014 Before: K Holwell, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sara Osaulenko (applicant) Shellie Goodchild and Abby Clark and Mark Kamphius t/as Equiscene (respondent)

The parties appeared in person File Number(s): GEN 14/01872

Application 1 By an application filed 10 January 2014 the applicant sought a money order in the sum of $8,000.00 in respect of the purchase price of a horse and related costs.

Jurisdiction 2 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this application pursuant to the Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW). The applicant is a consumer. The second respondent is a supplier of goods or services. The first respondent was the agent of the second respondent. The supply was in New South Wales. The claim is brought within the time limit in the legislation.

Proceedings 3 The application was listed for a directions hearing on 12 February 2014 but that hearing was adjourned owing to the unavailability of one of the parties. A directions hearing was held on 16 February 2014. The case could not be settled on that day and it was set down for hearing on 17 April 2014. It could not be heard on that day owing to problems with the availability of both respondents. A subsequent hearing date was allocated on 5 June 2014. The case was heard on that day and thereafter the decision was reserved pending the giving of these reasons. The hearing was sound recorded.

Evidence 4 Oral evidence was given by the parties. A considerable number of documents and witness statements were tendered. Videos of the horse were played. Photographs were also tendered. 5 It is not practical to recount all the oral evidence or the contents of the documents. In making findings I shall endeavour to refer to the main features of the evidence. Findings are made on the balance of probabilities. The applicant has the onus of proof.