General division case study

A common function of the CTTT is to determine the terms of an agreement between two parties.  In particular, the CTTT looks at what promises were made by the parties and whether those promises have been honoured.  If it is found that a breach of the agreement has occurred, the CTTT can determine the level of damages that should be awarded to the aggrieved party.

A young woman celebrated her 21st birthday with family and friends on a Sydney Harbour cruise.  She had paid for 42 people at the cost of $65 per head and verbally requested that a DJ play music, high quality champagne and other alcoholic drinks be served, and for a projector to be made available to display photographs and a home-made video.  However, on the night the young woman was very disappointed with the services provided.  In addition, there were two other buck’s party groups on the same cruise boat which were extremely disruptive to her party.

The young woman applied to the CTTT seeking compensation from the harbour cruise operator, claiming that she received a reduced level of service and should only have to pay $40 per head.  At the hearing the young woman and her mother gave sworn evidence about the events of that night.  It was claimed that there was no DJ in attendance as agreed and instead they had to go downstairs to ask the cruise director to change the CD.  They also complained about the cleanliness of the boat and the poor quality of drinks served.  The woman also stated that she had specifically told the cruise operator that she would not go ahead with the booking if there was a buck’s party on the same cruise, as her party was a family event with elderly relatives and young children.  The cruise operator denied these claims stating that he personally provided the DJ service on that night and that other quality drinks were available upon request.  He also denied that the young woman ever specified that she objected to buck’s parties booked on the same cruise boat.

It became clear to the Tribunal Member that the young woman’s expectations of the service provided was clearly different to the cruise operator’s in relation to the music, the quality of alcohol served and projection facilities.  It was found that because the contact between the parties was unclear as to the exact terms of the agreement, the woman thought she would be getting one type of service where the operator thought he was providing another.

The Tribunal Member preferred the evidence of the young woman about her intention not to proceed if the cruise also included a buck’s party.  The Member commented that it was difficult to accept that a young woman would agree to share her 21st birthday celebrations with two separate groups of men with the attendant revelry normally associated with such parties.

The Tribunal Member decided that the cruise operator had breached the terms of the agreement.  From the evidence it was clear that the operator understood that it was a term of the agreement that there would not be a buck’s party booked on the same evening as the young woman’s 21st birthday party.  Final orders were made that a $15 reduction per head should be given for that breach of the agreement, and ordered that $630 be refunded to the young woman.