Davies v Slee [2017] NSWCATCD 26

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Davies v Slee [2017] NSWCATCD 26 Hearing dates: 7 December 2016 Date of orders: 18 April 2017 Decision date: 18 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D. Goldstein, Senior Member Decision: 1. For the reasons provided Olivia Slee must pay Justine Linda Davies the sum of $8,999.00 immediately Catchwords: Misleading and deceptive conduct by representation Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 Cases Cited: Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246 Perpetual Trustee Company Limited & anor v Peter Ishak [2012] NSWSC 697 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applicant: Justine Linda Davies Respondent: Olivia Slee Representation: The parties were self-represented File Number(s): GEN 16/41694 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for Decision 1. The applicant commenced proceedings in the Tribunal in September 2016 seeking an order that the respondent pay her the sum of $20,000.00 for misleading and deceptive conduct. 2. The applicant was one of a number of persons who commenced proceedings against the respondent alleging substantially the same complaint. All the cases brought against the respondent, apart from separate witness statements, relied on the same documentation. The cases against the respondent were heard on the same day. 3. The respondent operated a business the 'Flawless Makeup Academy' ('FMA') from which she offered makeup courses to members of the public in consideration of the payment of specified fees. 4. In the evidence before the Tribunal there are a number of allegations made regarding events that occurred in the course of the scholastic year. However the gist of the applicant's case is that she was induced by the respondent's conduct, such conduct being by way of statements or representations, to enrol in a Certificate of Makeup course conducted by the respondent at the FMA for a fee of $8,999.00. I have understood that to be the applicant's primary case. On that basis I do not attach any significance to what is alleged to be conduct by way of representations made during the scholastic year since it has not been established or even suggested that such conduct caused the applicant to change her position in any way, she already having been enrolled in the course at the time of the alleged representation or conduct.