On 13 January 2006, D Kendirjian applied to the Tribunal for an order that he was not required to pay $458.04 to Optus Telecommunication. Notice of the application and of the hearing was given to the parties named on the application, and also to B Digital Pty Limited. The application came on for hearing before me at Parramatta, and I joined B Digital Pty Limited ("B Digital") as a party. In so doing, I noted that it had notice of the hearing from the Tribunal letter to it of 3 February 2006; I also bore in mind what was said by the Supreme Court in the Whale Car Wash case.

B Digital has now sought a brief statement of reasons in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 s.49. This is another example of a party seeking such a statement in a small claim, where that party has not attended the hearing. This is that statement. It does not constitute my reasons for decision; they remain those given orally at the hearing.

The claim was that the Respondents had provided services to the Applicant. It was therefore a consumer claim within the meaning of the Consumer Claims Act 1998 s.3.

Mr Kendirjian gave sworn evidence that what he had said in his application was correct. In evidence in reply, he agreed that he had paid accounts from B Digital.

Optus gave evidence that the contract to supply services was no longer with it but had been transferred to B Digital. He referred to accounts being sent by B Digital.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I was satisfied by the Applicant's evidence that the financial consequences of the transaction of which he was complaining had not been properly explained to him before he entered into it. In those circumstances, I found that the appropriate order to make, bearing in mind the provisions of the Consumer Claims Act 1998 s.13, was to relieve Mr Kendirjian of the obligation to pay the account he had received.