Boumelhem v Jogia Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 81

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Boumelhem v Jogia Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 81 Hearing dates: 15 August 2017 Decision date: 24 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Francesco Corsaro, SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent, Jogia Holdings Pty Ltd, is to pay the applicant, Ms Christina Boumelhem, the amount of $2,440.00 within 14 days of the date of this decision. Catchwords: Consumer Claim – services – compensation for loss and damage resulting from hairdressing services – implied term to provide services with reasonable care - breach of implied term of the services contract to provide hairdressing services with reasonable care – causation - loss and damage Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1998 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christina Boumelhem (Applicant) Jogia Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Simply My Hair Myer, Macquarie Park (Respondent) Representation: Applicant in person The Respondent company was represented by its director, Mr J Jogia File Number(s): GEN 17/23686 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION 1. The applicant, Ms Boumelhem, claims compensation for damage to her hair when she attended the respondent's hairdressing salon to have her hair washed and blow-dried. 2. The respondent (JHPL) operates a hairdressing salon, which is part of the Myer store in the Macquarie Shopping Centre at North Ryde, in Sydney (the Salon). There is no dispute that Ms Boumelhem went to the Salon on 24 April 2017 to have her hair washed and blow-dried. Ms Boumelhem and JHPL agree that Ms Boumelhem had previously had her hair done at the Salon on other occasions. 3. Although there is disagreement as to whether Ms Boumelhem went to the Salon on 24 April 2017 because she had pre-arranged an appointment, nothing turns on this. 4. Ms Boumelhem's version of events are that on 24 April 2017 she had her hair washed at the Salon using a shampoo or other product that caused a stark and an unwanted change in her colour; her natural hair was streaked and the hair extensions which were bonded to her hair changed to a uniform, and a very noticeably pale, colour in contrast to her natural hair. Ms Boumelhem complained about this. The JHPL hairdresser applied treatments to her hair to try and reverse the colour changes. The first caused Ms Boumelhem's natural hair and hair extensions to change colour again, but at least to look more consistent. The resulting hair colour was uneven, and unacceptable to Ms Boumelhem. The hairdresser tried again. She applied further hair products containing chemicals. The effect of this second treatment was also unsatisfactory. By this time, the hair extensions were slipping. This was obvious in the photographs taken by Ms Boumelhem during the course of the hair treatment. 5. Ms Boumelhem's position is that she is entitled to compensation. She claims that the treatment to her hair at the Salon on 24 April 2017 damaged her hair and her hair extensions. There is no real issue that the hair extensions were replaced at a cost of $2,000.00. Her hair has had ongoing remedial treatments at significant cost. 6. Ms Boumelhem's claim has the support of a report from another hairdresser, Ms Bray. She has assessed the cause of the damage to Ms Boumelhem's hair, and explains that Ms Boumelhem has had ongoing treatment. 7. JHPL denies it has any liability to Ms Boumelhem. JHPL says that the colour change was what Ms Boumelhem wanted. The further treatment was unfinished because Ms Boumelhem left the Salon.