Jensen v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 357

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 15, s 16

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

APS Satellite Pty Ltd (formerly known as "Sky Mesh Pty Ltd") v Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1898

Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] NSWCA 332

Knox v Tait Motors Pty Ltd t/as Tait Auto Group [2021] QCATA 87

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151; (2003) 130 FCR 182

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams [2023] FCAFC 50

• [1] This proceeding is about a watch manufactured by the respondent and purchased by the applicants. The applicants say the watch is defective and that there has been a major failure by the respondent to comply with the consumer guarantees found in the Australian Consumer Law. The applicants seek to recover the amount they paid for the watch of $649.00.

• [2] The watch is a Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 40mm (LTE). The applicants purchased the watch from JB Hi Fi on 12 September 2023 for $649.00.

• [3] The applicants say that after purchasing the watch issues emerged regarding the battery life. Specifically, during the period from 12 September 2023 until 19 March 2024, the watch was fully charged overnight and disconnected from the charger at 7.00am each day, however by between 12.00 midday and 2.00pm the battery was fully drained. The applicants say that this was a regular occurrence.
• [4] The watch was worn by the female applicant. She is a dental nurse assistant. She says that the watch was set up so that she received notifications about incoming emails, telephone calls and text messages. The watch also told the time and recorded health activity such as exercise and sleep data. This was all within the parameters of normal usage according to the applicants.
• [5] The applicants say that they were led to believe by the respondent's marketing that the battery life was up to 40 hours. They say that the actual battery life of the watch has, since purchase, been considerably less than this, as referred to above.
• [6] The applicants say that they returned the watch to the respondent on 19 March 2024 and requested that the issues with the battery life be investigated. The applicants say that the respondent replaced the battery on 21 March 2024 however the issues with short battery life persisted. Between 21 March and May 2024 the applicants recorded the watch battery performance.
• [7] On 21 May 2024 the male applicant contacted the respondent and advised that the issues with the battery life of the watch had not been resolved. On 27 May 2024 the applicants returned the watch to the respondent, attending at one of the respondent's retail outlets. The applicants advised the respondent's representative that they were seeking to return the watch and secure a refund of the amount paid for the watch. The representative advised the applicants that the watch would need to be sent away for further investigation.
• [8] On 31 May 2024 the applicants were contacted by the respondent who advised that the investigations had revealed no manufacturing fault or defect and that the respondent would not be refunding to the applicants the purchase price. Between June and August 2024 the applicants engaged in further discussions with the respondent which were not productive of an outcome satisfactory to the applicants.
• [9] The applicants say that the watch is not of acceptable quality noting the watch's very limited battery life.

• [10] The respondent says that on 28 May 2024 the respondent's authorised repairer inspected and tested the watch and identified no manufacturing fault or defect. The respondent says that this was communicated to the applicants on 31 May 2024 and the watch was returned to the respondent's retail outlet to be collected by the applicants.
• [11] In evidence is a document "Samsung Diagnostic Report' dated 28 May 2024. I will return to the report later in these reasons.
• [12] The respondent says that the applicants have adduced no evidence by way of an expert report identifying any manufacturing faults or defects with the watch. The respondent says that the applicants have adduced no evidence proving that the watch is not of acceptable quality.

• [13] Section 16 of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) ('FTA') applies the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) ('ACL') as the law of Queensland. By s 15 of the FTA, the ACL includes Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
• [14] Section 54(1) of the ACL provides that, where a person supplies goods in trade or commerce, the goods are guaranteed to be of 'acceptable quality'. The time at which goods are to be of acceptable quality is the time at which the goods are supplied to the consumer.[1] Information available after the time of supply may be taken into account in deciding whether the goods were of acceptable quality at the time of supply.[2] Where the supplier claims that the failure arose after the goods were supplied, the onus is on the supplier to prove that this is the case.[3] Section 54 is not a guarantee of perfection.[4]
• [15] By s 271 of the ACL a consumer may recover damages against a manufacturer for a breach of s 54. The definition of 'manufacturer' in s 7 of the ACL includes a person who has caused their name or brand to be applied to goods.
• [16] It is not contentious that the watch falls within the meaning of 'goods' for the purposes of the relevant provisions of the ACL. Nor is it contentious that the applicants are 'consumers' and the respondent is a 'manufacturer'.
• [17] Section 54(2) and s 54(3) of the ACL provide:

(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:

(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and

(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

(c) free from defects; and

(d) safe; and

(e) durable;

as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).

(3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:

(a) the nature of the goods; and

(b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and

(c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and

(d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and

(e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.

• [18] For goods to be of acceptable quality, they must satisfy all of the matters at s 54(2).
• [19] The applicants tracked and recorded the battery performance of the watch over a period of time. I accept the applicants' evidence about the battery performance as set out in the table below:

• [20] It is not contentious that the respondent's promotional material described the watch as having a 40-hour battery life. The respondent says that the representation contained in the marketing material was that the watch had a battery life of 'up to 40 hours' and that the actual battery life would depend upon the use to which the watch was put. I accept this evidence.
• [21] Here the respondent's own technical report becomes relevant. Of relevance for present purposes, the following may be discerned from the report:

(a) The battery health was described as 'good';

(b) The battery charge level was 100%;

(c) The battery life value was in normal range;

(d) No applications with high memory usage (RAM) were identified;

(e) Operating time after booting '1 Date 00 Hour 56 Minute 59 Second';

(f) S/W warranty diagnostics did not find any problems;

(g) The diagnostic test did not find any issues with user-installed applications;

(h) The watch was not running multiple applications at the same time;

(i) The watch was using 1.43 GB of 7.92 GB available storage space;

(j) No issues found with charging recognition in the charger.

• [22] There are two things that may be observed about the report. Firstly, it is not apparent on the face of the report how the various tests were performed and whether any of the tests effectively re-created the applicants' user experience with the watch. Secondly, the author of the report was not made available to be cross-examined at the hearing. The second issue was raised with the respondent at the hearing. The respondent advised that the technician who had conducted the test was not available to give evidence and, even if the technician was called, the evidence would be of little assistance. The latter submission appears to have been based on the fact that the diagnostic test, according to the respondent, involved the watch being plugged into a computer and a report generated by the computer.
• [23] I have difficulty accepting the respondent's submissions as to the utility of the technician who created the diagnostic report giving evidence. Much of what is contained in the report is difficult to understand in the absence of a more detailed explanation. An example of this is the reference to 'Operating time after booting 1 Date 00 Hour 56 Minute 59 Second'. I am quite unable to discern what this means. Similarly, the reference to the battery life being 'good' is not further explained. The term 'good' is vague and unclear - 'good' in what sense? The same may be said of 'battery charge level was 100%'. Presumably after being charged the battery charge level would be 100%. However, the issue complained of by the applicants is that the charge did not hold for an acceptable period. Similar observations may be made about other aspects of the report. In the absence of the author of the report giving evidence it is difficult attribute any significant weight to the report.
• [24] Another issue raised in the report should also be mentioned. The respondent says that the use of the product is the most important factor affecting the performance of the battery. This was clearly a reference to the watch being used to run multiple applications and the like. However, the report clearly identified that the watch was not running any application with high memory usage which could have caused the battery to drain faster nor were there any issues identified with user-installed applications.
• [25] Accepting the evidence of the applicants, I find that the battery life of the watch was typically between 6.5 hours and 10.5 hours. I find that the watch was used by the applicants within the parameters for which it was designed and that no applications were run which would have caused the battery to drain faster than it otherwise would or should. I take into consideration that the watch was purchased for $649.00, a not inconsiderable sum. I take into consideration that the watch was advertised as having a 40 hour battery life or an up to 40 hour battery life. I find that the actual battery life of the watch was much less than this.
• [26] I have considered the respondent's submission that the applicants have adduced no expert evidence about the reduced battery life of the watch. I have accepted the applicants' evidence about the reduced battery life of the watch. I have found that the applicants used the watch within its intended parameters and did not use the watch in such a way as to cause the battery to drain faster than it otherwise would.
• [27] The test as to whether goods are of acceptable quality is an objective one, being taken from the perspective of a reasonable consumer.[5] As I have observed, for goods to be of acceptable quality the goods must satisfy all of the matters at s 54(2) of the ACL. I find that a reasonable consumer, having regard to the matters referred to above, and fully acquainted with the true state and condition of the watch including the reduced battery life would not regard the watch as being of acceptable quality. I find that a reasonable consumer would expect the watch to have, if not a 40-hour battery life, then a battery life approaching this and certainly more than 6.5 hours to 10.5 hours. The battery life of the watch was such that it could not be used for an average day as would be expected. As to why the battery life of the watch is inadequate, the respondent is correct in submitting that the applicants have adduced no evidence about the cause of the identified issue. While there is no direct proof about the issue with the battery life of the watch, the evidence of the applicants gives rise to a reasonable and definite inference that the battery or the watch or a combination of both is causative of the issue with the battery life. I find on the balance of probabilities that at the time of supply, the watch was not fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied. I find that the respondent breached s 54(1) of the ACL.
• [28] By s 271(1) of the ACL if the guarantee under section 54 applies to a supply of goods to a consumer and the guarantee is not complied with an affected person in relation to the goods may, by action against the manufacturer of the goods, recover damages from the manufacturer.
• [29] By s 272(1) of the ACL a person is entitled to recover damages for reduction in the value of the goods resulting from the failure to comply with the guarantee below, being whichever is the lower of the price paid for the goods or the average retail price of the goods at the time of the supply.
• [30] Section 272 of the ACL does not confer an entitlement to recover the replacement costs of a defective good. The Tribunal is required to make an objective assessment of the amount by which the value of the goods has been reduced. Expert evidence is not a pre-condition to this assessment. The task is one of evaluating the diminishment in value by comparing the lifetime use of the goods with and without the failures. It is also necessary whether the defect can be remedied by replacement or repair.
• [31] I pause here to note that, in this proceeding, the applicants have elected to pursue their claim against the respondent manufacturer and not the retail supplier. Had they pursued their claim against the latter, the available remedies would have been different. For example, where there has been a major failure to comply with the consumer guarantee as to acceptable quality, a consumer may elect to reject the goods in which event they are entitled to recover the price paid for the goods. This is not a remedy available where the claim is made against a manufacturer.
• [32] I have taken into consideration the following matters:[6]

(a) The appropriateness of compensation for any reduction in value of the watch;

(b) The price paid by the applicants for the watch;

(c) The intrinsic value of the watch to the applicants by reference to the intrinsic utility of the watch over its useful life;

(d) The price that a reasonable consumer would have paid for the watch aware of the actual battery life;

(e) The fact that the respondent replaced the battery after which time the issues with the battery life persisted.

• [33] What then is the value of a watch with a battery life of between 6.5 hours and 10.5 hours which cannot be used on a daily basis without being recharged? In my view, such a watch is effectively of no value. It has no or virtually no intrinsic utility. A consumer expects an electronic watch to at least function for an entire day without interruption. A reasonable consumer would not have purchased a watch advertised as having a 40-hour battery life or up to 40 hour battery life if they knew the watch had a battery life of 6.5 hours to 10.5 hours.
• [34] In my view, taking all of these matters into consideration, the watch has no value.
• [35] For the sake of completeness I would add that neither party has raised the existence of an express warranty and I have therefore not considered the application of s 271(6) of the ACL.

• [36] The watch, having no value, the reduction in value as a result of the defect is the purchase price paid by the applicants. There will be a final decision for the applicants for $649.00.
• [37] Whether costs should be awarded is a matter to be considered under s 100 and s 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act'). In minor civil dispute proceedings costs are limited to recovery of any prescribed fee paid by the applicant. In this case, the recovery of costs is limited to the filing fee on the originating application.
• [38] The starting point is that the parties to QCAT proceedings should bear their own costs unless the interests of justice require an order for costs. I have considered the matters at s 102 of the QCAT Act. I have considered the extent to which the applicants' success will be eroded if they do not recover the filing fee in circumstances where the claim is a modest one. The applicants should have the fruits of their success without reduction. The applicants had no choice but to bring this proceeding in light of the respondent's attitude to their concerns. It is in the interests of justice that the applicants recover the filing fee paid on the originating application. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs fixed in the amount of $90.10.
• [39] I make orders accordingly.

[1] Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151; (2003) 130 FCR 182.

[3] Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] NSWCA 332.

[4] Knox v Tait Motors Pty Ltd t/as Tait Auto Group [2021] QCATA 87.

[5] APS Satellite Pty Ltd (formerly known as "Sky Mesh Pty Ltd") v Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1898.

[6] Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams [2023] FCAFC 50.