//
[2026] NSWDC 133
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2026-05-06
Andronos SC DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd v Cartwright [2026] NSWDC 133
Hearing dates: 22 April 2026
Date of orders: 6 May 2026
Decision date: 06 May 2026
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Andronos SC DCJ
Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $1,211,349.
(2) Pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), order the defendants to pay the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the sum of $79,717.
(3) The defendants pay the costs of the plaintiff assessed on a gross sum basis at $70,000.
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW — False or misleading representations — Representations about goods or services
CONSUMER LAW — Enforcement and remedies — Action for damages — Assessment of damages
AGREEMENT – Breach
COSTS — Gross sum costs orders
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98, s 100
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law, s 18
District Court Act 1973, s 4, s 44
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 29.7, r 30.1, r 42.1
Cases Cited: Bell v Hartnett Lawyers (No.2) [2021] NSWSC 1270
Harrison and Another v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213
Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd ACN 609 766 896 (plaintiff)
Jackson Cartwright (first defendant)
Kyla Cartwright (second defendant)
Cartwright Company Pty Ltd ACN 671 982 004 (third defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms M R Parker (plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers (plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2024/00433513
Publication restriction: Nil
The plaintiff, Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd, designs and manufactures high-end caravans to order. The first and second defendants, Jackson and Kyla Cartwright respectively, operate popular social media accounts on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. Through the third defendant, Cartwright Company Pty Ltd (Cartwright Co), they operate a business known as the “Cartwright Company”, which sells clothes and membership through a website, www.cartwrightco.com.au, and which is promoted through their social media accounts.
Following a dispute over a caravan bought by Mr and Ms Cartwright from the plaintiff, the defendants posted two YouTube videos critical of the plaintiff which caused it loss. The plaintiff brought these proceedings and, on 17 December 2025, the Court entered default judgment against all three defendants. The plaintiff now seeks the assessment of its damages and an order for costs on a gross sum basis.
The background to the present hearing is as follows:
The defendants operate social media accounts on YouTube, where they have over 73,000 followers, Instagram, where they have over 66,000 followers and Facebook (together “the social media accounts”). On the social media accounts, accessible by the public, they post content about their experiences travelling in a caravan around Australia, with their family of four children.
On 22 April 2022, the first defendant, Mr Cartwright, submitted an order through Newcastle Caravans and RVs Pty Ltd for an “Optimum CRZR 25’ Quad Bunk 2023” caravan manufactured by the plaintiff for $198,550 (including GST) (the caravan). The plaintiff constructed the caravan and delivered it to Mr Cartwright on 20 February 2023.
Mr and Ms Cartwright then used the caravan as their mobile residence, which they also used for the purpose of creating social media content that they published on their various social media accounts. The caravan featured in that social media content.
By about 30 August 2023, Mr and Ms Cartwright and the plaintiff were in dispute over the caravan. Mr and Ms Cartwright alleged it had a number of serious defects, which was disputed.
On 9 November 2023, the dispute was settled by agreement (the Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, the plaintiff agreed to repay the entire purchase price to the defendants (or at least to Mr and Ms Cartwright), the defendants would return the caravan to the plaintiff that day and would not talk negatively about the plaintiff, including on their social media accounts. The defendants also released the plaintiff from any claim they may have against it, including under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and under any warranty given by the plaintiff.
On 9 November 2023, in discharge of its obligations under the Agreement, the plaintiff paid $198,500 to the defendants and Mr Cartwright returned the caravan to the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the Agreement of 9 November 2023, on 4 February 2024, the defendants posted a video on YouTube titled, “HOMELESS!! OUR CARAVAN’S GONE!! RAW 1HR HOME VIDEO STYLE into OUR LIFE – DELIVERY of our NEW HOME” (the first video). Links to the first video were also posted on Instagram and Facebook on that day.
The first video conveyed representations that the plaintiff had forced the Cartwrights and their family to return the caravan with only a few hours’ notice, which caused them to be homeless, and that the plaintiff had engaged in behaviour to “beat up” and “defeat” the defendants and prevent them from “telling their story”.
On 28 July 2024, the defendants posted a further video on YouTube titled, “WE NEED to TALK … + GET to KNOW US!” (the second video).
The second video conveyed representations that the plaintiff makes caravans with “catastrophic defects” and that the plaintiff is evil and/or preventing the defendants from telling the “full story”.
The plaintiff has alleged that the publication of the first video and the second video was misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, in contravention of s 18 of the ACL, in that each of the representations was untrue. Further, the plaintiff has alleged that publication of the first video and the second video was in breach of the Agreement reached on 9 November 2023 which had been performed, on its part, by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that it has suffered significant damage as a result of that conduct.
These proceedings were commenced by summons on 21 November 2024 and a statement of claim was filed on 10 February 2025. An application for an interim injunction restraining further publication of the representations was averted by the provision of undertakings and edits to the videos complained of. The defendants filed defences on 29 April 2025 and were represented in the proceedings until 23 October 2025, when the former solicitors for the defendants filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act.
Since 28 October 2025, the defendants have not appeared and have not responded to any communication from the plaintiff or the Court. On 17 December 2025, the defences were struck out and judgment was entered against the defendants, with damages to be assessed. The defendants did not appear at the assessment hearing and there was no explanation for their failure to do so.
On the basis of the material before me, I assess the plaintiff’s loss by reason of the defendants’ breaches in the sum of $1,211,349 plus interest calculated pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). I also assess costs on a gross sum basis in the sum of $70,000.
The Court may proceed in the absence of the defendants pursuant to r 29.7(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR).
Mr Hoffman’s affidavits set out the attempts made by the plaintiff’s solicitors to contact the defendants by registered post and by email. The Notice of Ceasing to Act provided contact details for the defendants, including a street address, as well as email addresses and phone numbers. On 28 October 2025, Mr Cartwright emailed both the Court Registry and the plaintiff from the Cartwright Co’s email address.
On 27 November 2025, the Court Registry notified the defendants, by email and surface mail to the addresses notified in the Notice of Ceasing to Act, that the defences would be struck out if they failed to appear on 17 December 2025. Without explanation, the defendants did not appear and on 17 December 2025, their defences were struck out and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
The defendants did not appear at directions hearings on 23 January 2026, 16 February 2026 and 2 March 2026, notwithstanding having been notified by the plaintiff’s solicitors prior to each hearing. Each directions hearing was adjourned. On 2 March 2026, the present assessment hearing was listed for 22 April 2026. On 4 March 2026, the defendants were notified of the listing of the assessment hearing and were served with the first of Mr Raffaello’s affidavits by email. On 18 March 2026, copies were also served by registered post to the registered office of the Cartwright Co. and a number of other email addresses associated with the defendants. Delivery receipts from hello@cartwrightco.com.au, jackson@cartwrightco.com.au, jackson@clark-projects.com and kylacartwright.me@gmail.com were received by the plaintiff’s solicitors.
On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to notify the defendants of the programming orders made to date in these proceedings, the fact that judgment was entered against them on 17 December 2025 and the hearing date of 22 April 2026. Further, I am satisfied that notice has, in fact, been received by the defendants by reason of service of notice by the plaintiff’s solicitors at the email addresses and the street address (being the address of the registered office of the Cartwright Co) notified by the defendants’ former solicitors in their Notice of Ceasing to Act, and the receipt by the plaintiff’s solicitors of delivery receipts following such email service.
The defendants’ failure to appear, or even to acknowledge receipt of the communications sent to them, is not explained. Accordingly, I considered it appropriate to proceed with the assessment hearing in their absence.
Under r 30.1(2) of the UCPR, the assessment of damages is determined at trial. In the present case, that trial proceeded ex parte.
Mr Raffaello’s evidence relevantly went to two key issues: causation and quantum. With respect to causation, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes:
Over the last 5 years, Mr Raffaello has attended, on average, 25 to 30 caravan shows each year, at each of which he fielded enquiries from approximately 100 to 1,000 potential customers. In the period prior to publication of the first and second videos, the plaintiff converted between 5 and 25 of these enquiries into sales per show.
Sales at caravan and camping shows make up a large percentage – Mr Raffaello estimates 70% – of the plaintiff’s sales.
YouTube is regularly used by caravan purchasers and owners, including purchasers and owners of the plaintiff’s caravans, as a source of information and advice. The plaintiff, itself, uses YouTube for marketing and feedback from the caravanning community. The plaintiff had a good commercial reputation and was awarded best manufacturer of the year in 2022.
Shortly after the first video was posted on YouTube, it was raised by potential customers with Mr Raffaello at caravan and camping shows at about a quarter of the meetings he attended with them. Customers were concerned about the quality of the plaintiff’s product as well as its conduct towards the Cartwrights.
Customer enquiries and meetings at caravan shows declined significantly, notwithstanding that Mr Raffaello continued to attend them as before. The number of meetings Mr Raffaello had with potential customers was significantly reduced. Since publication of the first and second videos, the plaintiff has only made between one and five sales per show. Similarly, dealers have reported a decline in interest in the plaintiff’s caravans.
At least two contracts to manufacture caravans for identified purchasers were cancelled because of what those purchasers had seen on social media.
Orders for the plaintiff’s caravans have declined significantly. Mr Raffaello considers that there has been an industry-wide decline in volume of business, however, he says that the extent of the decline in the plaintiff’s business significantly exceeds the industry wide decline.
The evidence establishes that the first and second videos had wide circulation within the relevant caravanning market, that market responses to the plaintiff and its product changed from about the time of their publication and orders declined significantly from about that time. I accept that the extent of the decline exceeded any general decline and, on the evidence before me, is only explicable by reason of the defendants’ posting of the first and second videos. I am therefore satisfied that the conduct of the defendants, in contravention of s 18 of the ACL and contrary to the Agreement, caused loss and damage to the plaintiff as alleged.
| | $ | | Average annual trading profit between FY22 to FY24 | 7,896,983 | | 30% reduction in average trading profit to reflect general industry downturn | (2,369,094) | | Estimated trading profit in FY25 but for the defendants’ breaches (adjusted 70% of average annual trading profit) | 5,527,888 | | Less: Actual trading profit in FY25 | (4,919,118) | | Lost t****rading profit for FY25 due to the defendants’ breaches | 608,770 |
Further, the plaintiff has reasonably incurred additional recoverable marketing and advertising expenses as a result of the defendants’ breaches, in the sum of $602,579 over the period FY24 and FY25.
The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover total damages in the sum of $1,211,349 ($608,770 + $602,579).
The plaintiff has sought interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), commencing only from 1 July 2025. I consider interest from the proposed commencement date of 1 July 2025 to be appropriate in the circumstances. At court rates, interest to today’s date is $79,716.72:
1 July 2025 – 31 December 2025: 184 days x 7.85% x $1,211,349 = $47,936.23.
1 January 2026 – 6 May 2026: 126 x 7.6% x $1,211,349 = $31,780.49.
The plaintiff also seeks its costs. As it has succeeded and costs ordinarily follow the event, it should have its costs: UCPR, r 42.1.
The plaintiff makes an application for a gross sum costs order. Gross sum costs orders may be made in the Court’s discretion under s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The power may be exercised wherever the Court determines the circumstances warrant its exercise: Harrison and Another v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738 at 742 ([21]); [2002] NSWCA 213.
The circumstances may include where such an order would avoid the expense, delay and aggravation arising out of taxation: Bell v Hartnett Lawyers (No.2) [2021] NSWSC 1270 at [60] per Slattery J. See also Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275 at [199]-[200].
In the present case:
Between November 2024 and July 2025, the plaintiff made Calderbank offers to settle the proceedings on multiple occasions, including on the proposed basis of a discontinuance with no order as to costs, provided that certain undertakings not to make further publications were given by the defendants.
Total costs incurred by the plaintiff to 17 April 2026 (excluding the costs of the resolved injunction application) are $108,243.82 (ex GST). Costs to the final assessment hearing were estimated by Ms Klibbe at a further $10,280 (ex GST). I consider the costs incurred to date and Ms Klibbe’s estimate to be reasonable.
The defendants have ceased participating in the proceedings, have not responded to any communications since October 2025 and would be unlikely to participate in any costs assessment process or to agree a figure.
Even though the defendants’ failure to accept the Calderbank offers might have sounded in an application for indemnity costs, the plaintiff only seeks to recover costs on the ordinary basis. The plaintiff seeks a gross sum costs order on the basis that the defendants’ failure to participate in the proceedings indicates that the plaintiff will likely be required to incur the expense, and suffer the delay, in undertaking an assessment process in which the defendants will not participate.
In my view, it is appropriate to make a gross sum costs order on that basis in the present case. The defendants have not taken part in these proceedings and are unlikely to participate in any costs assessment process. The plaintiff would be put to unnecessary further delay and expense in order to recover its costs. In the exercise of my discretion, I will make a gross sum costs order.
The plaintiff seeks $70,000 by way of costs. The costs incurred have been incurred reasonably. The proposed discount on actual costs incurred, even as assessed on the ordinary basis, is significant. The plaintiff is prepared to accept, in full discharge of its claim for costs, a sum less than it would be likely to recover in an assessment. In my view, it is appropriate to make a gross sum costs order in the sum sought.
The orders of the Court, therefore, are:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $1,211,349.
Pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), order the defendants to pay the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the sum of $79,717.
The defendants pay the costs of the plaintiff assessed on a gross sum basis at $70,000.
**********
Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd
Cartwright
The plaintiff quantifies its loss as its loss of trading profit for FY25, together with additional marketing and advertising expenditure incurred, in FY24 and FY25, in order to mitigate the harm caused by publication of the first and second videos. With respect to quantum, the evidence before me establishes:
The decline in demand for the plaintiff’s caravans is established by the decline in orders for the manufacture of caravans following publication of the videos. Production of newly ordered caravans halved between FY23 and FY24. It dropped by almost a further 40% in FY25.
Sales are recorded in the accounts of the plaintiff on completion of construction, so there is a lag of many months between a decline in orders and a decline in revenue and recorded sales. The number of caravans sold declined by 67.4% from the average sales of caravans over the benchmark period FY21 to FY24. Sales by value declined from $21,462,825 in FY24, which were largely unaffected by publication of the first and second videos, to $12,145,228 in FY25. Previous years’ sales establish a benchmark, which shows that the FY24 sales figure was broadly in line with sales over the preceding two financial years.
The average trading profit over the period FY22 to FY24 was $7,896,983. Trading profit for FY25 was $4,919,118.
In addition to a diminution in trading profit, additional expenses (marketing and advertising) were incurred in FY24 and FY25. The increase in those costs from previous years, which the evidence shows were significantly higher than the FY20 to FY23 benchmark ($131,848), were $495,348 (FY24) and $107,231 (FY25). I consider these additional costs to have been reasonably incurred in response to the damage to goodwill, diminution in business and loss of trading profit occasioned by the defendants’ breaches. Accordingly, I assess recoverable increased advertising and marketing costs at $602,579 ($495,348 + $107,231).
On the basis of the above:
I have assessed lost trading profit (being sales less the cost of sales that, but for the defendants’ breaches, would otherwise have accrued to the plaintiff) by comparing the trading profit for FY25 with the average trading profit for the period FY22 to FY24, which in my view provides an appropriate counterfactual.
I have then allowed for a 30% reduction in damages on the basis of a general downturn in the industry.
I therefore assess that the plaintiff has suffered lost trading profit in the sum of $608,770 as follows: