Heidari – Dowling v Leisure Inn Sydney Central Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 75

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Heidari – Dowling v Leisure Inn Sydney Central Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 75 Hearing dates: 21 April 2017 Decision date: 01 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: F Corsaro SC, Senior Member Decision: 1.The Tribunal orders that the respondent is to immediately pay the applicants the sum of $350 (inclusive of GST) for breach of contract. Catchwords: Consumer Claim, Consumer, Supply, Consumer Legislation Cited: Hotel letting contract made online– Formation of contract- terms of the contract - Misrepresentation based on statements made by online booking service – damages for breach of contract made for hotel letting – quantification of loss Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nahid Heidari-Dowling (applicant) Leisure Inn Sydney Central Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: The applicant by telephone from Perth. The respondent in person, by an authorised employee Ms Leanna Su. File Number(s): GEN 17/05210 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION 1. This application concerns a stay in a Sydney hotel, and whether the hotel room and the accommodation met the agreed standards. 2. The applicant, Mrs Heidari-Dowling, lives in Perth, Western Australia. She planned to spend five days in Sydney in December 2016. She booked a "Superior Twin" hotel room (the Room) for her stay at the Leisure Inn Sydney Central hotel. The address of the hotel is 28-30 Regent Street Chippendale (the Hotel). The online booking site used by the applicant to reserve the Room, the "Booking.com" website, stated the address to be '28-30 Regent Street, Sydney CBD'. 3. The material placed before the Tribunal establishes that the Booking.com website has the facility where hotel owners and operators provide the website operators with hotel and accommodation listings and other information such as room prices, availability and images and reviews. The website has a search tool which then scans the hotel listings so that a website user can access the information and may lodge their accommodation request either online or by contacting the hotel directly. 4. There is no issue that Mrs Heidari-Dowling arranged to let the Room online for the period 31 December 2016 to 5 January 2017 (the Letting Period). 5. According to the application lodged with the Tribunal on 2 February 2017: 1. Ms Heidari-Dowling was looking for a 'nice/spacious/clean room with internet connection to be able to have a relax[ing] time…and to enjoy Sydney's events during the new year period'; 2. the various Booking.com webpages made various representations in the text and images about the location of the Hotel and the features of the Hotel and the rooms that it offered, including: 1. a representation that the Hotel was a 'fully refurbished hotel' that 'offer[ed] modern rooms'; 2. a representation that the location of the Hotel was 'within 20 minutes' walk' of the 'shopping, bars and restaurants of Darling Harbour, QVB, and Pitt Street Mall'; and 3. a representation that each room in the Hotel had 'a large work space with WiFi connectivity'. 1. Ms Heidari-Dowling says that the reality was different from the picture painted of the Hotel and the Room by the Booking.com web pages that appeared on her web browser when she booked the Room online. She wants the Tribunal to order the respondent hotel owner and operator (Leisure Inn), to refund to her the amount of $1,425.00 that she paid for her stay. 2. The information on the Tribunal's file establishes that on 13 February 2017, the Tribunal granted Ms Heidari-Dowling's request for a telephone hearing. Accordingly, the hearing of the application before me proceeded with Mrs Heidari-Dowling appearing at the hearing by telephone from Perth. 3. Leisure Inn appeared at the hearing, represented by an employee, Ms Leanna Su. Ms Su stated that she was employed as the personal assistant of Leisure Inn's Executive Director, Mr Richard Doyle, and had been authorised to appear to represent Leisure Inn. 4. Mrs Heidari-Dowling opposed the Tribunal giving Ms Su leave to appear for Leisure Inn. She submitted that Ms Su might be "pressured" and unable to objectively and fairly deal with her application. Having considered Mrs Heidari-Dowling's submissions on this issue, I decided that Ms Su should be granted leave to appear for Leisure Inn. My reasons for doing so were: 1. Ms Su, reporting to Mr Doyle, was the Leisure Inn employee charged to deal with the application; 2. Ms Su had been dealing with Ms Heidari-Dowling's complaints about the Hotel and the Room, and had knowledge of the claims being made in the application; 3. Ms Su had prepared the Leisure Inn documents which Leisure Inn lodged with the Tribunal, and on which it relied; 4. Ms Su provided Mr Doyle with the information used by Mr Doyle in letters responding to Mrs Heidari-Dowling's complaints; 5. Ms Su had been specifically authorised by Leisure Inn to appear at the hearing; and 6. I considered that no real prejudice flowed to Ms Heidari-Dowling in permitting Ms Su to present Leisure Inn at the hearing. 1. Mrs Heidari-Dowling lodged her application with the Tribunal on 2 February 2017. She lodged her documentary material in support of her application on 4 April (the Application Bundle). Leisure Inn provided its bundle of documents on 3 April 2017 (the Respondent Bundle). I have had regard to: 1. the oral evidence of Mrs Heidari-Dowling and the Application Bundle; and 2. Ms Su's evidence and the Respondent Bundle. 1. I have relied on the information in the Tribunal file to understand earlier procedural issues. 2. I have considered, and have been assisted by submissions by both Ms Heidari-Dowling and Ms Su at the hearing.