Oliver Lynch v GOTOGATE Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 159;

1. The proceedings were commenced on 22 November 2024 and were listed for final hearing before me on 9 May 2025.
2. On that date, the Applicant and the Respondent's legal representative, Mr Flett, appeared by video-link.
3. During that hearing, in addition to the significant amount of background noise at the location from where the Applicant appeared, the Applicant's connection frequently dropped out or froze such that the Applicant could not be reliably heard or understood. Consequently, the hearing was unable to proceed on that day, and an adjournment was required.
4. The hearing resumed on 3 July 2025, and again both the Applicant and the Respondent's legal representative appeared by video-link.
5. For convenience, I will refer to 'the hearing' in these reasons, however such references should be understood as encompassing the hearings held on 9 May and 3 July 2025.
6. At the hearing, the Applicant relied on several documents in two bundles, described by the Applicant as PDF A and PDF B, which included:

(1) flight booking information;

(2) correspondence;

(3) payment records and bank statements;

(4) travel insurance claim information.

1. The Applicant also relied on an audio recording of a telephone conversation he had with a representative from Emirates, together with a transcript of that conversation and email correspondence from Emirates.
2. At the hearing, the Respondent relied on a bundle of documents that included:

(1) a written outline of submissions;

(2) the Respondent's terms and conditions;

(3) travel itineraries;

(4) screenshots of the online booking systems;

(5) extracts of Emirates Airlines' terms and conditions;

(6) Correspondence.

1. The Applicant gave oral evidence, and the Respondent's legal representative was given an opportunity to ask the Applicant questions. Both partes also made oral submissions.
2. As a result of matters that arose during the hearing, the Respondent sought leave to submit further documentary evidence. The Applicant consented to that leave being granted subject to being given an opportunity to reply. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing, directions were made for the parties to lodge with the Tribunal and provide to each other any further documents and written submissions that they wished to rely on.
3. In accordance with those directions:

(1) on 21 July 2025, the respondent lodged with the Tribunal a bundle of documents which comprised a supplementary submission, together with system screenshots, call logs, and copies of the Respondent's terms and conditions together with those issued by Emirates;

(2) on 31 July 2025, the Applicant lodged with the Tribunal, three documents which contained extracts of email correspondence, together with further evidence and submissions.

1. The directions made on 3 July 2025 also required the parties, when lodging further material with the Tribunal, to indicate whether they sought a further oral hearing. Neither party sought a further oral hearing in the material lodged with the Tribunal in accordance with those directions. Having regard to the further material submitted by the parties, and the fact that neither party sought a further oral hearing, I am satisfied that the matter can proceed to judgment without further hearing.
2. For the avoidance of doubt, the summary of the evidence and material relied on by the parties set out in the preceding paragraphs is not intended to be exhaustive, to identify all documents contained in the parties' bundles, or to summarise them. In determining the real issues that arise in these proceedings, I have not found it necessary to refer to each piece of evidence or submission that was made: see Hafezi v Luff Pier Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 148 at [72]. In those circumstances, that a particular issue, document, event, or matter is not referred to in these reasons should not be understood as having been overlooked. I have had careful regard to all the material before the Tribunal in reaching the conclusions set out in these reasons.

1. In the following paragraphs I set out the relevant background facts as I have found them from a consideration of the whole of the evidence before the Tribunal. To the extent necessary, I will make additional findings when considering aspects of the Applicant's claim elsewhere in these reasons.

1. As set out above, the Respondent operates an online travel agency platform (or "portal") known as "Mytrip". Through that platform (amongst other things) people can search, select, and book air travel.

1. On about 1 January 2024, the Applicant booked two tickets for travel from Sydney to London, return, at a total cost of $5,033.85 (Original Booking). That booking was made online via the Respondent's "Mytrip" platform.
2. The flights booked by the Applicant in the Original Booking were:

(1) Sydney to London, via Bangkok and Dubai, with Emirates departing Sydney on 17 June 2024 at 0950 (Outbound Flight);

(2) London to Sydney, via Dubai and Bangkok, with Emirates departing London on 19 July 2025 at 1455 (Return Flight).

1. At the time that the Applicant made the Original Booking, the Applicant acknowledged and accepted the Respondent's terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of the carrier, Emirates.
2. That acknowledgement occurred in circumstances where bookings made on the Respondent's online platform, including that made by the Applicant, go through a multi-step process. The screenshots of the Respondent's system that are in evidence, which I accept reflect the process that was in place when the Applicant made the Original Booking, establish that those steps were as follows:

(1) First, the customer can search for available flights across the Respondent's platform (or "portal"), including by inputting proposed travel details;

(2) Second, the customer will be offered a selection of flights based on the results of their search, including airlines, flight times, routes and prices, from which the customer will select the flight(s) they wish to book;

(3) Third, the customer will enter traveller details and be provided with an opportunity to acquire optional extras (such as flexible tickets, cancellation guarantees, and lost baggage services etc);

(4) Fourth, the customer has the option to select their seats;

(5) Fifth, the customer can select optional extras (some of which were also offered during step 3) such as trip cancellation protection, travel insurance, airline insolvency protection, flight delay compensation, and lost baggage services;

(6) Sixth, the customer is required to review their selections and the traveller details that have been entered to confirm their accuracy;

(7) Seventh, payment is required. As part of this step, and before payment can be made, the customer is required to check a box that contains the following text:

I have read and accept Mytrip's travel conditions, Fare Rules, the airline's general terms and conditions and I have entered my booking information correctly. You can read our Privacy policy here. Find your airline(s) terms and conditions here: Emirates Airlines. We do not share your payment details with the airline.

Each of the underlined sections of the above extract were hyperlinks, through which the relevant terms and conditions or policies could be accessed. A booking cannot be completed, and payment cannot be made, unless the customer checks that box and thus accepts (among other matters) the Respondent's terms and conditions and those of the relevant carrier.

1. I am satisfied that the Applicant made the Original Booking by using that same process and accordingly accepted the Respondent's terms and conditions and those of Emirates at the time the Original Booking was made.
2. Copies of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions that applied at the time that the Original Booking was made were in evidence (Respondent's Terms and Conditions). Pausing there, it was suggested by the Respondent that another, yet relevantly identical version of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions applied to the Applicant's request to change the date of the Return Flight because the Applicant was in the United Kingdon at the time that request was made. However, having regard to clause 3.5 of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions (extracted below) which apply to requests for changes to bookings, I am satisfied that the Respondent's Terms and Conditions that were accepted by the Applicant at the time of the Original Booking applied to the request to change the date of the Return Flight. In any event, the Respondent did not submit that anything turned on which version of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions applied.
3. Copies of Emirates' terms and conditions were also in evidence, although they were dated December 2024 (Emirates' Terms and Conditions). The substance of the Respondent's submission was that those Terms and Conditions were the same, or at least materially identical, to those in place at the time of the Original Booking and when the request to change the Return Flight was made (i.e., 18 July 2024). The Applicant did not take issue with that submission, and accordingly I will proceed on that basis.

1. On 17 June 2024, the Applicant and his partner travelled from Sydney to London on the Outbound Flights as booked in the Original Booking.

The Applicant contacts the Respondent to change the Return Flight

1. On 18 July 2024 - the same day as the Return Flight was scheduled to depart in accordance with the Original Booking - the Applicant contacted the Respondent by telephone in order to change the departure date of the Return Flight from 18 July to 21 July 2024.
2. An issue arose during the hearing as to when on 18 July 2024 the Applicant contacted the Respondent. The Applicant's evidence during the hearing was that he could not now recall the time at which he contacted the Respondent to change the return flight, although it was during that afternoon. In written material lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, the Applicant stated:

I wish to clarify and formally document the core issue in this matter. It is true that my partner and I did not board our originally scheduled return flight from London to Sydney, which was booked via Gotogate for 18 July 2024. However, on that same day, we rebooked new return flights for 21 July 2024 through Gotogate, paying a substantial additional sum of AUD $3,140. This sum was accepted by a Gotogate customer service agent over the phone, who also selected our new flights, seats, etc

and:

I contacted Gotogate after missing the original flight and purchased a new return ticket through them.

and:

Summary:

• I did contact the travel agency promptly after the missed flight (within ~50 minutes as per Respondents councils [sic] supplementary evidence), and I purchased new tickets for a later return date.

• The key distinction is that I did not attempt to use the missed ticket, but instead paid Gotogate for an entirely new return flight - which they failed to issue.

• Thus, whether my contact was 1 hour, 2 hours, or even the next day is irrelevant, because:

o I was not trying to use the missed ticket.

o The claim is not about a refund or rebooking on the missed flight - it's about non-delivery of a service for which I paid in full.

1. Pausing there, and as will become apparent below, having regard to what occurred and the way in which the Applicant's claim for damages has been advanced, it is not entirely correct to say that the claim does not concern a question of a "refund or rebooking of the missed flight". However, the Applicant's position as set out in the extract above as to when he contacted the Respondent on 18 July 2024 is consistent with the call logs maintained by the Respondent and lodged with the Tribunal on 21 July 2024. According to those call logs, the Applicant contacted the Respondent to change the departure date of the Return Flight on 18 July 2024 at about 3.47 pm, London time. That was after the Return Flight had been scheduled to depart.
2. However, notwithstanding that fact, the Respondent's representative was able to access and make changes to the Original Booking within Emirates' Global Distribution System (Emirates' GDS) to rebook the Return Flight to depart London on 21 July 2024. Why the Emirates GDS permitted that to occur at that time (as opposed to, say, requiring an entirely new booking) was not explained by the evidence, however I have not found it necessary to resolve that issue in considering the Applicant's claim.
3. Two extracts from Emirates GDS were in evidence, both of which are relevant to the issue of what occurred on 18 July 2024 and thereafter.
4. The first was as follows:

1. In written submissions lodged on 21 July 2025, the Respondent's described the entries in that extract in the following terms (emphasis added):

16. A breakdown of the information contained in Annexure SSD is as follows:

(a) The first two line items commencing with "145 AS/EK" are the new flights added by the Respondent's customer service agent in accordance with the Request made by the Applicant (i.e., the New Itinerary). These two lines contain the following information:

(i) The New Itinerary: EK66 (London Stansted (STN)) to Dubai (DXB) and EK414 (Dubai (DXB)) to Sydney (SYD));

(ii) The fare travel class: "Y" meaning full-fare economy class; and

(iii) The date and time of departure, and subsequent arrival of each flight segment. The dates and times shown are the same as the relevant time zone the flight was departing from and arriving at (i.e., EK066 departs at 14:55 (2:55pm) BST).

(b) The third and fourth line items beginning with "145" provide confirmation of:

(i) The passengers travelling the New Itinerary (i.e., the Applicant and his partner);

(ii) The passengers ticket type (ADT meaning an adult fare); and

(iii) Confirmation that the New Itinerary was confirmed by the Airline; with the comments "RSVR/HK" meaning "Reservation/Confirmed". "HK" is the GDS' code for an amendment or change being approved by the Airline.

(iv) The Respondent cannot amend or reissue tickets to a customer (including the Applicant) unless confirmation is provided by the Airline.

(c) The fifth line item beginning with "145 RF-" contains the statement "-NMC­ SCANDI", which is the Respondent's signature used on the GDS to signify who has made the bookings and/or amendments to an existing booking.

(d) At the conclusion of the fifth line item (which is also the conclusion of the New Itinerary), there is a timestamp of "18JUL1512z", which is the time that the change was made: 18 July 2024 at 15:12 Zulu time (i.e., 15:12 GMT or 16:12 BST).

(e) The sixth, seventh, and eighth line items beginning with "032/147" provide the details of the Inbound Flight.

(f) At the conclusion of the ninth line item beginning with "147 RF-", the timestamp for the removal of the Inbound Flight is "18JUL1513z"; being 18 July 2024 at 15:13 Zulu time (i.e., 15:13 GMT or 16:13 BST).

(g) The remainder of the line items in Annexure SSD are irrelevant to the current matter.

1. The other extract of the Emirates GDS System in evidence was as follows:

1. That extract was described by the Respondent's solicitor in written submissions lodged on 21 July 2025 as follows:

(a) The first three lines commencing from "1 STNDXB EK0066... " show

(i) The flight number and flight path (EK66 London Stansted to Dubai);

(ii) The fare type: "B" meaning a "Flex fare" full fare economy ticket;

(iii) The date of departure;

(iv) The Applicant's individual ticket number: SAC-1769850352468;

(v) The flight status: "O" refers to the flight being "open" for changes to be made. A "C" status refers to a passenger being "checked in". A flight status will only change to "C" when a customer has completed self­ check-in online, or been checked in by an airline agent at the airport;

(vi) The agent/operator who has made the change: "SYDA828F7" referring to the Respondent, "STN" referring to Emirates Stansted, and "SYS" referring to the Emirates system. The code "CHNG" means "change"; and

(vii) The time these changes were made. The Initial Booking was made at 09:01 GMT (8:01pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time) on 1 January 2024; with the subsequent STN and SYS changes both occurring on 18 July 2024 at 07:12 GMT (8:12am BST) and 12:20 GMT (1:20pm BST) respectively.

(viii) The Respondent cannot comment on the STN and SYS changes since it does not perform flight services (clause 1.1.4 of the Terms and Conditions).

(b) The fourth line with the highlighting on "S" otherwise confirms that the Applicant's status on the Inbound Flight was changed to "Suspended" (i.e., a no-show) by Emirates Stansted at 15:20 GMT (16:20 BST).

1. For the purposes of my consideration of the Applicant's claim, I accept the description of the codes and entries in those extracts provided by the Respondent's solicitor.
2. Having regard to the evidence, and the Respondent's written submissions, I am satisfied that the following steps were taken on 18 July 2024:

(1) The Applicant telephoned the Respondent at about 3.47 pm London time to seek to make changes to the Original Booking by changing the departure date of the Return Flight to 21 July 2024;

(2) During that call, the Respondent's representative accessed the Applicant's booking within Emirates' GDS, and at that time the Return Flights were marked "open", such that changes could be made to that booking.

(3) The Respondent's representative then entered the changes requested by the Applicant - namely to flights to Sydney departing London on 21 July 2024 - and once that had been done, those changes were "confirmed" by Emirates. That process was completed at 4.12 pm London time;

(4) The Return Flight as per the Original Booking was then "removed" at 4.13 pm London time. I take the reference to "removal" to refer to the fact that the change to the departure date of the Return Flight to 21 July 2024 had been accepted;

(5) During that call, the Respondent's representative advised the Applicant of the additional cost to make the change, being $3,140, which the Applicant paid by credit card. That amount comprised a charge of $3,008 by Emirates, and the Respondent's fee of $132. I am satisfied that the charge levied by Emirates reflected the difference in the fare between the Return Flight as per the Original Booking, and the proposed flights on 21 July 2024. Although the Applicant's position in his written material lodged on 31 July 2024 was that he "did not attempt to use the missed ticket", I am satisfied that that the cost of the Return Flight as per the original booking was applied to the cost of the proposed flights on 21 July 2024, reflective of the fact that what was being done was to effect a change to the Original Booking.

(6) The Applicant's call to the Respondent concluded at about 4.22 pm, London time. At around that same time, the Applicant's status on the Return Flight as recorded in the Emirates GDS was changed to "suspended", which was recorded in the Emirates GDS as having occurred at 4.20 pm, London time.

1. Once the changes to the Return Flight had been made by the representative within the Emirates GDS, they were referred to what was described by the Respondent's solicitor in written submissions as "the Respondent's ticketing department". In doing so, the call log records that the request was marked "urgent for ticketing". Having regard to that submission, and the content of the call log, I am satisfied that the changes to the Return Flights that had been made within the Emirates GDS System were urgently referred to the Respondent's "ticketing department" so that tickets for the 21 July 2024 flights that had been booked and paid for during the telephone call could be issued. As the submission of the Respondent's solicitor extracted above made clear, the Respondent could only re-issue tickets if the change had been accepted by Emirates, which the extract from the Emirates GDS records had occurred prior to the change in status of the booking to "suspended".
2. As will be seen below, ultimately tickets for the booked flights on 21 July 2024 were not issued.
3. It appears that either during the call, or shortly after it concluded, the Applicant received an email from the Respondent confirming the booking for the flights on 21 July 2024. It is not entirely clear precisely when the email was received as the version in evidence is dated 19 July 2024 at 1.17 am, and it is not apparent which time zone that date and time relates to. However, having regard to its content, and the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that it was received at around the time that the Respondent's representative had entered the request to change the Return Flight within Emirates' system, and accepted payment of the $3,040 from the Applicant. Relevantly, that email stated:

We have confirmed your payment. Please find your receipt attached to this email...

...

Please note that your booking will be updated within 24 hours if you've requested to add a new passenger, or rebook your trip. You will receive a confirmation email once the process is completed.

1. A copy of the receipt referred to in that email was in evidence, recording the breakdown of the amount paid by the Applicant as set out above.
2. The evidence also included what appears to be an updated itinerary that recorded the Applicant and his partner having been booked on a flight from London to Sydney, via Dubai, departing on 21 July 2024. The copy in evidence was taken from a screenshot, and accordingly the evidence does not reveal when that was issued, although I am satisfied that it was likely issued shortly after the Respondent's representative made the entry into the Emirates system, and received payment from the Applicant, and the email referred to in the preceding paragraphs was sent.

The Applicant discovers that no tickets have been issued

1. On about 20 July 2024, the Applicant discovered that he and his partner had not been issued tickets for travel on 21 July 2024 when the Applicant attempted to check-in online to those flights. That became apparent to the Applicant when within the Emirates online check-in platform (a screenshot of which was in evidence) although the booking was visible, check-in was not available, and the following message was displayed:

This trip isn't ticketed yet. You'll be able to manage your trip once its paid for and you've received your ticket.

1. The Applicant then contacted the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Applicant attempted to make contact by telephone and by an online chat function. I am also satisfied that the Applicant encountered difficulty in seeking to resolve the issue with the Respondent, and that he was referred to Emirates. In this respect, on 20 July 2024, a representative of the Respondent provided the applicant with booking and E-ticket reference numbers by email. Also on 20 July 2024, a representative of the Respondent sent the Applicant an email which stated:

Thank you for contacting us.

We have received your request for the order number: MQAUGS.

As we ahve [sic] checked regarding your booking to make changes we apologise as you didnt showed [sic] up for your flights the airline has marked you as no-show and changed the status of the flights.

We kindly request you to check with airlines first make the status open [sic] and the contact us back so we can make changes for your flights.

Airline reference number:- HDJP5F.

1. It is apparent that at that stage, the Respondent was referring the Applicant to Emirates in order to have Emirates change the status of the booking. However, although not referred to in the Respondent's material, I am satisfied that a representative of the Respondent contacted Emirates on 20 July 2024. In this respect, the recording of the telephone call between the Applicant and Emirates includes a passage where the Emirates representative informs the Applicant of what is recorded within Emirates' system in relation to the Applicant's booking on 21 July 2024. There was also a transcript of that recording in evidence, which I am satisfied is materially accurate (noting that the Respondent did not contend otherwise).
2. Relevantly, during that call, the Emirates representative stated (emphasis added):

I can repeat that for you. Your travel agent contacted us with your original ticket on the 20th July so that he can reissue the ticket. We opened the ticket for your travel agent on the 20th July.

After that, your travel agent has directly put the ticket for refund. He's taken the refund amount from us. He booked another flight for the 21st July, which was only a booking. However, he did not reissue the ticket. Instead, he refunded your ticket.

...Your travel agent has to reissue the ticket because the control of the booking and the ticket was with your travel agent. And this is because your travel agent booked you for the 21st July.

...

Because it's a booking that was made 6 months ago without any ticket for the 21st July. Your travel agent only booked the flight but never issued the ticket, so we are unable to send you these details by email.

...

He contacted us. He opened the ticket, and then the agent took the refund of the ticket without reissuing the ticket or issuing a new ticket. And then he's booked it for 21st July, but never reissued the ticket.

1. Further, the Applicant also received an email from a Customer Sales and Service Representative within Emirates (although the date of that email is not clear on the copy in evidence), that stated (emphasis added):

You were originally booked to travel back from London Stansted to Sydney on 18th July 2024. Your Travel agency MyTrip/Gotogate which also goes via IATA name AUSTRALIA / AIR TICKETS MELBOURNE indeed attempted to rebook your return trip. They booked the below flights on 18th July, however tickets were not reissued. Hence, change was not completed.

EK 0066 21JUL STNDXB 1455 0100

EK 0414 22JUL DXBSYD 0215 2205

In the event that tickets are not reissued, these sectors which are only temporarily booked will be cancelled.

The original tickets were issued by the travel agency hence the control of the booking is with them. Any change or refund will have to be done by the issuing agent.

As per notes in the booking, travel agent Ritik called our Reservations Team and we have advised him that tickets need to be reissued. The call was made on 20th July. Tickets were not reissued leading to the cancellation of the flights.

1. That email also included the following screenshot from Emirates' system that recorded the contact from "Ritik" on 20 July 2024.

1. The Respondent did not adduce evidence of its contact with Emirates on 20 July 2024, including any call logs. However, that the booking was re-opened on 20 July 2024 is recorded in the extract from Emirates GDS referred to in paragraph 40 above. In this respect, on 20 July 2024, the status of that booking was changed from "S" to "O" - which, according to the explanation given by the Respondent's solicitor referred to above reflects that fact that the booking had been reopened so changes to it could be made. I am satisfied that occurred as a result of contact made by a representative of the Respondent to Emirates on 20 July 2024, and - as described by the Emirates representative in the telephone call with the Applicant, and in email correspondence - would have permitted the tickets to be reissued by the Respondent to give effect to the rebooking on 21 July 2024.
2. Although the Applicant's booking had been reopened by Emirates at the request of the Respondent, tickets for the booked flight on 21 July 2024 were not issued.

The Applicant and his partner return to Australia

1. In circumstances where no tickets for travel on 21 July 2025 had been issued, the Applicant made alternative arrangements to return to Sydney, securing a return flight departing Paris with Qantas on 22 July 2024 at 10.00 am.
2. The Applicant and his partner travelled from London to Paris by train on 21 July 2024, to take that flight.

The Applicant's further communications with the Respondent

1. On his return to Australia, the Applicant engaged in further email communications with the Respondent. Those communications were extracted in the material lodged by the Applicant with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025.
2. On 25 July 2024, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent stating:

You're a bunch of inept idiots committing crimes.

We informed the London Metropolitan Police of this egregious misconduct, filled out a police report in addition to filing a claim with our insurer to cover the substantial financial expenses we had to incur due to someone in this company fucking up our flights.

Anticipate a lawsuit for this deplorable behaviour. We requested ad nauseum for a manager to be put on the phone, we were told multiple times a manager "does not exist", we requested multiple times to be called back which we never were...we were subjected to gross unprofessionalism and harrowing incompetence. You're all a bunch of uneducated fucking basket cases and mark my fucking words, you will pay (literally and proverbially).

I am demanding to be refunded in excess of $5500 AUD, roughly $3k for the rebooking which someone fucked up, and the credit transferred from the Emirates and Qantas flights amounting to roughly $2.5k AUD. If you can perform basic maths, doubt you idiots can, that amounts to roughly $5.5k AUD.

I hope to see this appalling and repugnant company in court. Rot in hell you bastards. You're about to be plastered on the news everywhere, loose customers and more importantly lose your IATA. You played with the wrong fucking people. Get the paperwork ready to file for chapter 11.

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Oliver Lynch

1. In attempting to make contact with the Respondent after his return to Australia, it is apparent that the Applicant faced difficulty in that several of his emails "bounced" back, such that the email extracted in the paragraph above was re-sent by the Applicant on multiple occasions, including on 13 August 2024.
2. On 15 August 2024, a representative of the Respondent replied to the Applicant's email stating:

Thank you for your email.

We apologise for the delayed response.

We would like to inform you that we are unable to find the reservation with the details you have provided.

Kindly provide us the boking number so that we can assist you further.

1. Through August and September there were further email exchanges between the Applicant and the Respondent. There were also other occasions in which the Applicant attempted to send an email to the Respondent but received a "bounce-back message". Many of the emails sent by the Applicant involved requests by him for reimbursement from the Respondent. I have not found it necessary to set out the text of each of those communications in full in these reasons.
2. On 25 September 2024, a representative of the Respondent sent an email to the Applicant, which relevantly stated:

Following up on our previous email. We have reviewed your booking and would like to clarify the situation regarding your rebooking request. It is important to note that during your initial contact with us, the status of your tickets was checked-in (not suspended). At that time, we advised you to reach out to the airline to cancel the check-in and re-open the tickets, which was necessary for us to proceed with the rebooking. You later contacted us after completing the payment, and we forwarded your request to the relevant department to update the tickets with new flight details. However, before the new flights could be applied, the airline changed the ticket status from open to suspended.

When you contacted us again, we requested that you follow up with the airline to lift the suspension. Unfortunately, the airline redirected you back to us. This back and forth prevented the rebooking from being finalised, and we understand that you incurred additional expenses to travel to Sydney.

We understand the inconvenience this has caused, but after reviewing the documents you provided, we see that you have already filed a claim with your insurance company. Given that there is an active claim with your Insurer, we are unable to process your claim simultaneously.

Once again, we are sorry to hear about the difficulties you experienced. We hope our explanation provides clarity regarding our decision.

1. Later that same day, the Applicant responded to that email in the following terms:

Obviously you lack basic comprehension, I paid for the tickets (paid the rebooking price of $3k) and then all the other shit ensued. I paid for tickets, but tickets were never issued to me. I called around doing MyTrips [sic] job, I was never issued any tickets. Wire me my fucking $12k. Do not draw conclusions you cannot substantiate you idiot, there is no "active" claim, nothing I sent you was "active". My insurer did not cover my request nor does any other insurer cover "mistakes made by a third party related to bookings". Therefore, you can process my claim.

If the next email I receive from this fucking repugnant company isn't conformation of a wire sent to my account of $12k then straight to NCAT I go.

1. There were then further email exchanges between the Applicant and representatives of the respondent between later September 2024 and mid-December 2024, at which time the Respondent retained a solicitor to represent it in these proceedings. Again, I have not found it necessary to set out the content of each of those communications in full in these reasons.

1. In the Application filed in these proceedings, the Applicant described the orders sought as follows:

Force MyTrip, whom is operated by Gotogate, both of which are subsidiaries of the Etravelie Group, to pay me the stated sum I was forced to incur due to the illegal conduct of MyTrip. I paid for a service, and that service was not performed as a result I suffered substantial financial losses. Further, civil charges should follow suit due to the plethora of similar cases out there. MyTrip has inadequate and insufficient systems in place to resolve customer disputes. Further, they intentionally make it difficult for consumers to resolve issue.

1. Notwithstanding the way in which the claim was described in the Application, during the hearing it became clear that the Applicant alleged that in providing the travel agency services - in particular those associated with the attempt to change the return flight from 18 July to 21 July 2024 - the Respondent failed to comply with the consumer guarantees in sections 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law, and for breach of contract.
2. In this respect, in material lodged by the Applicant with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, the Applicant described the basis of his claim as follows:

I appear today with concrete evidence that Gotogate (operating as MyTrip) unlawfully defrauded my partner and me of approximately $12,000 AUD, excluding interest - interest we reserve the right to seek as per solicitor advice and subject to the Registrar's determination.

Gotogate, not Emirates, is solely liable for this egregious breach. In a prior hearing, Gotogate's former legal representative, Mr Scott, wrongly attempted to attribute blame to the airline. This was a baseless and unsubstantiated claim, as confirmed by direct communication with multiple Emirates employees.

1. The Applicant also described the basis of his claim as follows:

The company's conduct - from its unresponsiveness, no-reply addresses, call deflections, lack of escalation, to its failure to alert me to the missing ticket - all demonstrate a deliberate, systematic failure to provide service with due care and skill, in breach of Sections 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

I respectfully ask the Tribunal to take into account the substantial time, effort, and stress incurred as a result of Gotogate's inaccessibility and failures, and to view this behaviour as a material aggravating factor in the Respondent's breach of contract and consumer obligations. The company did not just fail to deliver a flight; it failed to deliver even the most basic customer service standards during a moment of real need.

Under Australian Consumer Law (ACL), I am entitled to a full refund or compensation for loss or damage if a service provider:

• Fails to supply a service, or

• Supplies it in a way that breaches the consumer guarantees (e.g. not performed with due care and skill, or not delivered at all).

In my case:

Gotogate failed to deliver a service I paid for - return flight tickets.

What I am legally entitled to under ACL:

Section 267(4) of the ACL is key. It states that if a service is not provided or is defective, the consumer can recover any reasonably foreseeable loss or damage that resulted from the failure - even if the loss wasn't caused directly, as long as it was a natural consequence.

1. Those descriptions of the Applicant's claim were consistent with how the Applicant advanced the claim during the hearing.
2. In material lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, the Applicant particularised his claim for damages as being for $7,420.95, comprised as follows:

(1) Rebooking fee - $132.00;

(2) Credit from January 2024 booking - $2,516.93;

(3) Airbnb accommodation in London (18-21 July) - $676.43;

(4) Qantas airfare - $2,516.93;

(5) Train fare (London to Paris) - $886.28;

(6) Accommodation in Paris (21 July) - $120.46;

(7) Incidentals (21-22 July) - $385.18; and

(8) International transaction fees - $186.75.

1. I note that the Applicant had originally also claimed the $3,008 paid to the Respondent on 18 July 2024 as the difference in the fares between the Return Flight as per the Original Booking, and the cost of the flights on 21 July 2024. That amount was refunded to the Applicant by the Respondent after the hearing, and accordingly no claim is now maintained in respect of it.
2. In his written material, the Applicant also appeared to advance a claim for pre-judgment interest. To the extent that such a claim is made, I note that the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) does not contain a source of power to award pre-judgment interest. Rule 39 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) provides that where there has been a successful civil claim for the payment of a sum of money, "interest is payable on the outstanding balance for the time being of money adjudged by the Tribunal to be payable and which, being due, remains unpaid", however that does not provide a source of power to award interest of the kind that appears to be claimed by the Applicant. In those circumstances, to the extent that the Applicant makes a claim for "pre-judgment" interest on any amounts that I may award, I reject that claim.
3. The Respondent's position in relation to the Applicant's claim was summarised in its written submissions lodged on 21 July 2025 as follows:

(a) By virtue of the incorporation of the Terms and Condition, the Applicant acknowledged that Respondent was acting as an intermediary for the Airline in making the bookings.

(b) The Respondent was not contracted to provide the flight services or guarantee the provision of flight services by the Airline.

(c) The Respondent agreed to supply booking services only and its obligation was to exercise due care and skill in relation to the supply of those services.

(d) The Respondent completed the Initial Booking and processed the Request in accordance with its Terms and Conditions and has fulfilled its contractual obligations to the Applicant.

(e) The Applicant's claim should fail in its entirety.

1. Section 79J of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear and determine "consumer claims".
2. Section 79E(1) of the Fair Trading Act defines a "consumer claim" to mean:

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a "consumer claim" means a claim by a consumer, for one or more of the following remedies, that arises from a supply of goods or services by a supplier to the consumer (whether or not under a contract) or that arises under a contract that is collateral to a contract for the supply of goods or services--

(a) the payment of a specified sum of money,

(b) the supply of specified services,

(c) relief from payment of a specified sum of money,

(d) the delivery, return or replacement of specified goods or goods of a specified description.

1. In Skiba v Serendipity (WA) Pty Ltd t/as Advanced Personal Management [2019] NSWCATAP 224 the Appeal Panel set out the elements of a consumer claim at [56]:

... on the meaning of 'consumer claim' in s 79E(1), and other definitions relevant to the words and terms in that section, the elements of a consumer claim arising from the supply of services under Part 6A of the FT Act, include the following:

(1) the claim must be made by a 'consumer' as defined in s 79D. Section 79H provides that a person claiming to be a consumer is to be presumed to be a consumer until the contrary is proved;

(2) the claim must arise from a 'supply' as defined in s 79G(2);

(3) the claim is for 'services' as defined in s 79F;

(4) by a 'supplier' as defined in s 79D, to a 'consumer' (whether or not under a contract) in the course of carrying on or purporting to carry on a 'business', as defined in s 4; and​

(5) the claim seeks one of the remedies listed in s 79E(1)(a) to (d).

1. On the material before the Tribunal, and in accordance with the conclusions set out in these reasons, I am satisfied that:

(1) the Applicant was within the meaning of a "consumer" for the purposes of s 79 of the Fair Trading Act. In any event, once an assertion to that effect is made - as it has been here - a presumption arises that the Applicant is within the meaning of a consumer, unless it is proven to the contrary: s 79H of the Fair Trading Act. No such attempt was made by the Respondent in this case;

(2) the services provided by the Respondent as an online travel agent constituted a "supply" for the purposes of s 79G(2) of the Fair Trading Act;

(3) the services supplied by the Respondent constituted "services" for the purposes of s 79F of the Fair Trading Act;

(4) the Respondent is within the meaning of a "supplier" of those services to the Applicant (who is a "consumer") in the course of carrying on or purporting to carry on the travel agency business within the meaning of s 79D of the Fair Trading Act;

(5) the claim - being one for the payment of an amount of money - seeks one of the remedies set out in s 79E(1)(a)-(d) of the Fair Trading Act.

1. The claim is within the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit for claims made under the Fair Trading Act: see s 79S of the Fair Trading Act.
2. I am satisfied that the proceedings were commenced within the time limit applicable to making such claims before the Tribunal: see s 79L of the Fair Trading Act.
3. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter. I note that the Respondent made no submission to the contrary.

1. The Australian Consumer Law applies to the circumstances of the present case by reason of ss 28 and 32 of the Fair Trading Act.
2. As observed above, the Applicant's claim is advanced on the basis that the Respondent contravened ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law, and in breach of contract.
3. Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law provides:

If a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.

1. The standard of "due care and skill" contemplated by s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law is analogous to the standard of reasonable care in the tort of negligence: Thompson v Dominelli Group Pty Ltd t/as Dominelli Ford [2025] NSWCATAP 106 at [187]; Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett [2017] NSWCA 243 at [6]- [10]; Wade v J Daniels and Associates Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1708 at [330]; Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) [2023] FCA 1280 at [445].
2. A consideration of whether or not services provided have been "rendered with due care and skill" (or whether they are fit for purpose) involves the application of an objective standard having regard to the particular circumstances of the case: Issacs v Michael [2024] NSWCATAP 236 at [83], citing Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett (supra) at [6] (s 60) and Karpiak v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (supra) at [497] (s 61).
3. Section 61 of the Australian Consumer Law provides:

(a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer; and

(b) the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the supplier any particular purpose for which the services are being acquired by the consumer;

there is a guarantee that the services, and any product resulting from the services, will be reasonably fit for that purpose.

(a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer; and

(b) the consumer makes known, expressly or by implication, to:

(i) the supplier; or

(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the services were conducted or made;

the result that the consumer wishes the services to achieve;

there is a guarantee that the services, and any product resulting from the services, will be of such a nature, and quality, state or condition, that they might reasonably be expected to achieve that result.

(3) This section does not apply if the circumstances show that the consumer did not rely on, or that it was unreasonable for the consumer to rely on, the skill or judgment of the supplier.

(4) This section does not apply to a supply of services of a professional nature by a qualified architect or engineer.

1. In Sun v Lumi Skin Clinics Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 17, the Tribunal considered the elements of s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law and held:

60. Section 61(2) imposes a guarantee that the supplier's services will be "of such a nature, and quality, state or condition" that they "might reasonably be expected to achieve" a result that was disclosed by the consumer to the supplier (etc), except where "the circumstances show that the consumer did not rely on, or that it was unreasonable for the consumer to rely on, the skill or judgment of the supplier".

61. The plaintiff or applicant has the burden of establishing all of the elements, including that (1) he or she had made known to the supplier a particular result he or she wished the service would achieve, and (2) that the services, and any product resulting from the services, would not reasonably have been expected to achieve that result.

1. In Wade v Daniels and Associates Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1708 (cited with approval in Inruse Pty Ltd v Equity Lenders Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1434 at [230]), O'Bryan J held:

The phrase "particular purpose" in s 61 of the ACL has been construed broadly in the predecessor provisions in legislation governing the sale of goods. A particular purpose is a definite purpose that has been expressly or impliedly communicated, but it need not be a purpose that is special or individual to the consumer concerned: David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 at 121 (Starke J); and at 128 (McTiernan J); Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1935] UKPCHCA 1; (1935) 54 CLR 49 at 60 (Lord Wright).

1. it is apparent that the Applicant relies on the same conduct as the basis for the claim pursuant to s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law as the claim advanced pursuant to s 60.
2. Section 267 of the Australian Consumer Law sets out the rights of a consumer against the supplier of services where a guarantee contained in ss 60 or 61 is not complied with. It provides:

(1) A consumer may take action under this section if:

(a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to the consumer; and

(b) a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 3‑2 is not complied with; and

(c) unless the guarantee is the guarantee under section 60 - the failure to comply with the guarantee did not occur only because of:

(i) an act, default or omission of, or a representation made by, any person other than the supplier, or an agent or employee of the supplier; or

(ii) a cause independent of human control that occurred after the services were supplied.

(2) If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:

(a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or

(b) if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time - the consumer may:

(i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or

(ii) terminate the contract for the supply of the services.

(3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:

(a) terminate the contract for the supply of the services; or

(b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the services below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the services.

(4) The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.

(5) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3).

1. Section 267 of the Australian Consumer Law confers a statutory cause of action on a consumer in circumstances where the relevant guarantee has been contravened: Scenic Tours v Moore [2023] NSWCA 74 at [4], [21]-[30] per Kirk JA (Ward P agreeing).
2. In written material lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2024, the Applicant made clear that his claim for relief was advanced pursuant to s 267(4) of the Australian Consumer Law. The use of the words "because of" in that section require there to be a causative link between the failure to comply with the guarantee and the loss or damage claimed.
3. In relation to the Applicant's claim for breach of contract, it is trite that a contract for the supply of services contains an implied warranty that the services will be supplied with due care and skill and will be fit for purpose. Although the guarantees that arise pursuant to ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law are not necessarily co-extensive with a duty that may arise under contract, in this case I am satisfied that the implied warranty in the contract between the Applicant and the Respondent is relevantly identical in scope to the consumer guarantee in ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law: compare Scenic Tours v Moore [2018] NSWCA 238; (2018) 361 ALR 456 at [174]; Flight Centre Travel Group Ltd t/as Aunt Betty v Goel [2021] NSWCATAP 44 at [50]- [60].
4. Generally speaking, damages in contract are analogous to damages in tort in that the award seeks to return the party in the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred. The availability of damages is subject to the "rule" in Hadley v Baxendale, which provides that damages will be available where the loss or damage claimed is such that it may be fairly and reasonably considered as naturally arising in the usual course of things from a breach of the contract in question, or as may be reasonably supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time they made the contract as being the probable result of its breach.

The services that were to be supplied by the Respondent

1. Before turning to a consideration of the Applicant's claim, it is necessary to first identify the nature and scope of the services that the Respondent was contracted to provide to the Applicant. It is the performance (or non-performance) of those services that informs a consideration of whether the Respondent was in breach of the guarantees in ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law and its contractual obligations.
2. The services that were to be provided by the Respondent to the Applicant were described in the Respondent's Terms and Conditions which (as set out above) I am satisfied were accepted by the Applicant at the time the Original Booking was made. I am satisfied that those terms and conditions reflected the terms of the contract between the parties and applied not only to the Original Booking but also to the Applicant's engagement of the Respondent to facilitate a change to the departure date of the Return Flight.
3. Relevantly, the Respondent's Terms and Conditions contain the following:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICE

1.1 Mediation of Travel Services

1.1.1 For the flight, hotel, insurance, train and car rental services offered on the Portal (collectively referred to as "Travel Services"), We exclusively provide travel mediation services through which We only act in our capacity as an intermediary between You and a Service Provider (out travel mediation services are referred to as "Mediation Services".) To that end, our role and obligations are limited to mediating Travel Services that will be rendered by third parties such as airlines, travel operators, hotels, insurers, car rental companies or other service providers (hereinafter in each case "Service Provider" or "airline", where specifically applicable).

1.1.2 Consequently, the agreement for the actual provision of Travel Services (e.g, transport contract, insurance contract, rental agreement) comes into effect directly between Yu and the relevant Service Provider. We are not a co-vendor of the Travel Services and We are not a party to the contractual relationship between You and the Service Provider.

1.1.3 By using the Portal to purchase Travel Services, You authorise Us to engage in Mediation Services and mediate with the corresponding Service Provider(s) on your behalf, including mediation of the payment for these Travel Services, in order to take care that the transaction between You and the Service Provider(s) is carried out.

1.1.4 Responsibility for the actual performance of the Travel Services mediated through the Portal is exclusively held by the relevant Service Provider. In our role as intermediary, We do not assume any responsibility for the Travel Services to be rendered by the Service Providers and We make no representations or warranties (neither expressed [sic] or implied) regarding the suitability or quality of the Travel Services mediated on the Portal. For any claim You may have in context with the performance or non-performance of the Travel Service, the Service Provider is the responsible addressee.

...

3. MEDIATION OF FLIGHTS

3.1 Conclusion of contract and price changes

3.1.1 After You submit your booking request, We will confirm receipt of your request via email. This is the moment that the mediation contract between You and Us comes into existence...

3.1.2 As soon as your requested ticket have been issued, You will receive a confirmation email with a ticket number. This is the moment a binding contract between You and the relevant airline(s) has been concluded.

3.1.3 Prices for the flight and seat availability are added directly in the Portal by the applicable airline. If changes are made by the airline that are outside of our control (e.g. price changes, seat availability or something else) and that occur after a booking request has been made, but before the contract with the airline has become binding (as set out in section 3.1.2 above), the contract will not entire into force and your payment will be refunded in full...

3.2 Information on booking and transport conditions

3.2.1 Regarding the flights offered on the Portal, We exclusively act in our capacity as an intermediary. The agreement for the performance of the flight comes into effect directly between You and the relevant airline and we do not accept contractual responsibility related to the performance or non-performance of your flight. The operating airline is solely responsible for performance/non-performance of your flight.

...

3.2.3 When mediating Travel Services rendered by airlines, We are not guaranteed access to the airline's booking system. Where this is the case, We may act on your behalf in concluding the contract between You and the airline. We may also ask You to contact the relevant airline directly for questions on bookings, changes or cancellation of your booking.

...

3.5 Changes and cancellations requested by You

3.5.1 The conditions for changing flight bookings (including change of passenger name, destination, and date of travel) and for providing cancellation refunds are set by the relevant airline, which is your contractual partner for providing the flight. We, as the intermediary, have no influence over such conditions.

3.5.2 If You wish to make a change to your booking or request a cancellation refund, as an additional own service, We offer to handle the request on your behalf, provided that the conditions of the airline permit such a change or cancellation refund. During the process of booking such additional services, we will inform You of any further conditions and fees for such services. For a list of our fees, click here.

3.5.3 In order for us to be able to handle the changes requested by You, it is necessary that We receive your change requests at the latest 24 hours prior to the commencement of travel.

For change requests at shorter notice, We recommend that You contact the relevant airline directly.

...

3.6 Non-Appearance or Non-Attendance of the Flight

If you do not appear or attend your flight, You hereby authorise us to request possible refunds from the airline on your behalf. We are entitled but not obligated to do so and any rights You have to request unclaimed refunds directly from the airline remain unaffected.

If We do obtain refunds on your behalf, We will deduct our fees from the amount claimed...We will retain any refunds obtained on your behalf, less our fees, for 12 months following the date of the flight and You will be able to request a transfer of this amount, less our fees, at any time before the 12 month period has passed by contacting our customer service.

1. Having regard to the content of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions, I am satisfied that the Respondent was required to provide was the services of an intermediary between the Applicant and Emirates, including "travel mediation" services on behalf of the Applicant. In relation to requests for booking changes (like that which occurred on 18 July 2024), the Respondent's services were again that of an intermediary, dealing with (or "mediating") that request and any changes that flowed from it on behalf of the Applicant.
2. However, the Respondent was not contracted or obliged to provide the services of an air-carrier.

Was the Respondent responsible for issuing air tickets for the 21 July 2024 flights?

1. It is clear from the manner in which the Applicant advanced his case that it was founded on a contention that the Respondent had a responsibility to issue tickets for the flights that had been booked for 21 July 2024 and that, in breach of the consumer guarantees in ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law, and the Respondent's contractual obligations, it failed to do so which in turn required the Applicant to incur costs in arranging return travel from London to Sydney.
2. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that it was the Respondent's responsibility to issue the tickets for the flights that had been booked for 21 July 2024. In reaching that conclusion, I find the evidence contained in the recording of the telephone call between the Applicant and Emirates, and the subsequent email the Applicant received from Emirates, to be particularly compelling. In particular, when that evidence is considered with the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that:

(1) The Respondent had the ability to issue the tickets to the Applicant, and had done so in the Original Booking;

(2) In making the changes to the Return Flights on 18 July 2024, the relevant representative referred the booking to the "Respondent's ticketing department" for "urgent ticketing", again indicating that the Respondent had the ability (and responsibility) to issue the tickets for the flights that had been booked for 21 July 2024;

(3) On 20 July 2024, a representative of the Respondent contacted Emirates to re-open the booking so that tickets could be issued and was advised at that time by Emirates that the Respondent needed to re-issue the tickets for the booking on 21 July 2024.

1. The high point of the Respondent's position on this issue was a submission that as a result of the fact that the Applicant and his partner did not present for the Return Flight, the status of the booking had been changed to "suspended" (albeit after the change had been submitted). As I understood it, the Respondent's position was that the change to "suspended" prevented the booking on 21 July 2024 to be finalised. In advancing that submission, the Respondent did not point to any evidence from Emirates to that effect.
2. Ultimately, the evidence does not satisfy me that the change to "suspended" on 18 July 2024 prevented the Respondent from issuing tickets on the flights booked for 21 July 2024. In addition to a lack of evidence to support a conclusion that the change in status on 18 July 2024 after the booking for 21 July 2024 had been made had that effect, the fact that Emirates reopened the booking on 20 July 2024 at the Respondent's request so that tickets could be issued tells strongly against that proposition. If Emirates had refused to permit changes to the booking because the Applicant and his partner had not presented to the Return Flight on 18 July 2024 (as the Respondent seemingly contends), it is inconceivable that it would have then re-opened the booking on 20 July 2024 to enable tickets for the booked flights on 21 July to be issued.
3. In advancing that position, the Respondent also relied on Emirates' Terms and Conditions, including the following:

3.4.3 If you want to change the carriage recorded in your Ticket...you must contact us before departure of any flight concerned....

...

6.1 You must present yourself for check-in no that than:

(a) 1.5 hours (90 minutes) for First or Business Class; and

(b) 3 hours for Premium Economy or Economy Class,

prior to the scheduled departure of your flight.

6.3 You must arrive at the boarding gate on time

You must be present at the boarding gate not later than the time specified by us at the time that you check-in. If you arrive outside the applicable time limit at the boarding gate, you will be refused carriage...

1. The Respondent also relied on clauses 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions, extracted above.
2. I am not persuaded that the content of the Respondent's Terms and Conditions and Emirates' Terms and Conditions relied on by the Respondent require a different conclusion to that which I have reached. Even accepting that the Applicant did not comply with aspects of them, their terms do not alter the fact that when the Applicant contacted the Respondent on 18 July 2024 (notwithstanding the time at which that contact was made) the Respondent was able to make changes to the booking for the Return Flight and rebook the Applicant and his partner on flights on 21 July 2024, which were accepted by Emirates at that time. For the same reasons as outlined above, that Emirates reopened the booking on 20 July 2024 at the request of the Respondent to enable the tickets booked for 21 July 2024 to be issued also points strongly against the Respondent's position on this issue.
3. Accordingly, having regard to the evidence as a whole, and having considered the submissions made by the Applicant and Respondent's solicitor, I am satisfied that as part of providing the travel mediation services, it was part of the Respondent's function to issue tickets for travel. I do not consider that in doing so the Respondent was assuming the role of an air carrier or guaranteeing the provision of flight services. Rather, I am satisfied that it was a function that was within the ambit of the Respondent's role as a travel agent (being one that it had performed in relation to the Original Booking) and within the scope of services that the Respondent was contracted to provide.
4. Having regard those conclusions, in my view the circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from those in Flight Centre Travel Group Limited T/A Aunt Betty v Goel [2021] NSWCATAP 44 which was relied on by the Respondent. Goel concerned a claim against a travel agent where tickets for air travel had been issued, but the flight as booked was unable to be provided by the carrier due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. In my view, the circumstances here are very different in that the relevant failure is to issue tickets as part of the booking process, not a failure to supply air transport once that booking process had been completed and tickets issued (see Goel at [61]).

Has the Applicant established a breach of obligation by the Respondent in relation to the request to change the Return Flights?

1. Having regard to the conclusions I have reached above, I am satisfied that:

(1) it was the Respondent's responsibility in providing the travel mediation service to issue tickets for the booking made for the flights on 21 July 2024;

(2) the Respondent failed to issue tickets for the bookings flights on 21 July 2024 on both 18 July 2024, when that booking was made (despite being referred to the Respondent's "ticketing department" for "urgent ticketing"), and again on 20 July 2024 when the booking was re-opened by Emirates at the Respondent's behest for that to occur.

1. Having regard to the principles set out above, and the conclusions I have reached in these reasons, I am satisfied that failure constituted a contravention of the consumer guarantees in s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law. In this respect, I am satisfied that in failing to issue the tickets for the flights booked for 21 July 2024, the Respondent failed to provide the travel mediation services to the Applicant with due care and skill, in that it failed to perform an essential step (for which it was responsible) to give effect to the booking made on the Applicant's behalf.
2. For those same reasons, I am also satisfied that the Applicant has established that the Respondent was in breach of its contractual obligation to render the travel mediation services with due care and skill.
3. Having regard to the principles set out above, and the conclusions that I have reached in these reasons, I am also satisfied that the Applicant has established that the Respondent contravened the guarantee in s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law, in that:

(1) I am satisfied that the Applicant made known to the Respondent the particular purpose for which the services were being acquired - namely to secure a flight from London to Sydney on 21 July 2024. I am satisfied that was, at least, implicitly made clear during the telephone call between the Applicant and the Respondent on 18 July 2024, having regard to the nature of the request and the context in which it was made.

(2) In failing to issue tickets to give effect to the booking that had been made on the Applicant's behalf, I am satisfied that the travel mediation services provided in relation to that booking were not reasonably fit for purpose, in that the Respondent failed to perform an essential step (for which it was responsible) to give effect to the booking made on the Applicant's behalf.

1. Having reached those conclusions, it is necessary to turn to consider the Applicant's claim for damages.

1. As set out above, the Applicant claims damages of $7,420.95, comprised as follows:

(1) Rebooking fee - $132.00;

(2) Credit from January 2024 booking - $2,516.93;

(3) Airbnb accommodation in London (18-21 July) - $676.43;

(4) Qantas airfare - $2,516.93;

(5) Train fare (London to Paris) - $886.28;

(6) Accommodation in Paris (21 July) - $120.46;

(7) Incidentals (21-22 July) - $385.18; and

(8) International transaction fees - $186.75.

1. This aspect of the Applicant's claim relates to the rebooking fee paid to the Respondent on 18 July 2024.
2. The Applicant submits that as the services supplied by the Respondent failed to secure the flights booked for 21 July 2024, that fee should be returned to him.
3. I am satisfied that the Applicant has suffered a loss of the rebooking fee as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct as found above. In this respect, I am satisfied that the Applicant has paid for a service from the Respondent to secure flights from London to Sydney on 21 July 2024, but that the Respondent has failed to perform that service such that tickets were not issued for those flights. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant has not received the value of the service for which he paid and that in the circumstances of this case, the true value of the service obtained by the Applicant from the Respondent on 18 July 2024 was, in substance, nothing.
4. Having regard to the principles set out above, I am satisfied that the Applicant is entitled to recover the difference between the true value of the service he received - being $0 - and the cost paid to the Respondent.
5. Accordingly, I will award the Applicant the sum of $132 in respect of this aspect of the Applicant's claim.

Credit from the Original Booking ($2,516.93) & Qantas Airfare ($2,516.93)

1. These aspects of the Applicant's claim relate to amounts paid by the Applicant for the return travel from London to Sydney. In total, the Applicant claims $5,033.86 in respect of those items.
2. The manner in which the Applicant advances this aspect of his claim is not entirely clear. As set out above, in some instances the Applicant suggests that the case is not about a "credit" from the Original Booking but concerned the cost he incurred to book new flights. However, in written material lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, the Applicant also advanced this aspect of his claim as follows:

This $2,516.93 AUD reflects the value of travel credit from the initial January 2024 booking, which was applied toward the new (but never fulfilled) booking. It is separate from the Qantas flight expenses and directly linked to Gotogate's failure to deliver tickets for the rebooked journey.

Since no service was provided, this credit should also be refunded to me.

1. Accordingly, it is apparent that the Applicant maintains a claim to recover $2,516.93 from the amount paid as part of the Original Booking, and which the Applicant says was applied to the cost of the flights booked for 21 July 2024.
2. The Applicant paid $4,422.82 for return flights from Paris to London on 21 July 2024. Of this amount, the Applicant also seeks to recover $2,516.93. This aspect of the Applicant's claim was described in his written material lodged on 31 July 2024 as follows:

While it is true that I would have needed to return to Australia at some point regardless, the reason I was forced to purchase last-minute, premium-priced Qantas tickets was solely due to Gotogate's failure to issue the tickets I had already paid for.

This failure occurred just one day prior to the planned departure (21 July 2024), leaving no time for alternative cost-effective travel arrangements. Had Gotogate issued the tickets as contracted, I would have flown home as scheduled at no additional cost beyond the original booking and rebooking fee. Instead, due to their breach, I was placed in an emergency situation and forced to outlay an inflated price for same-day/next-day international travel - something that would not have occurred but for their conduct.

Therefore, I am not seeking compensation for the entire cost of returning home, but rather for the premium and avoidable cost difference that resulted directly from Gotogate's failure to deliver the service ($2516.93 which reflects the cost of a one-way ticket price re. initial booking in January, 2024 via Gotogate).

1. I am not persuaded that the Applicant's approach to these aspects of his claim reflects an appropriate approach to the assessment of the loss the Applicant suffered as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct. Indeed, in my view, the approach adopted by the Applicant would result in him being over-compensated. As much can be seen by the fact that the total amounts claimed for these items exceeds the cost of the flights from Paris to Sydney on 22 July 2024.
2. As seemingly acknowledged by the Applicant in the passage extracted above, had the Respondent not engaged in the contravening conduct that I have found, tickets for the 21 July 2024 flights would have been issued, and he would not have incurred any additional expense in retuning to Sydney beyond that which he paid on 18 July 2024. Importantly, on the Applicant's case the amount paid for the 21 July 2024 flights included a "credit" component of the Original Booking together with the additional $3,008 paid to Emirates on 18 July 2024.
3. In the event, as the tickets for flights on 21 July 2024 were not issued, the Applicant secured return flights to Australia from Paris at a cost of $4,422.82.
4. Contrary to the approach adopted by the Applicant, in my view the proper measure of the Applicant's loss insofar as it relates to the cost incurred in returning to Sydney is the additional amount that the Applicant had to pay over and above the cost of the 21 July 2024 booking. It is that amount that reflects the Applicant's loss suffered as a result of the Respondent's contravening conduct because (even on the Applicant's case) he would have incurred the costs associated with the 21 July 2024 flights in any event (including any "credit" from the Original Booking applied to them), in circumstances where he now accepts that he and his partner "missed" the Return Flight on 18 July 2024.
5. The starting point for the assessment of that additional amount is the cost of the flights that the applicant purchased from Paris to Sydney on 22 July 2024, being $4,422.82. However, the Applicant has recovered the $3,008 paid by him on 18 July 2024, which must be brought to account. Once that is done, the Applicant's loss can be seen to be $1,414.82.
6. It is that amount that reflects what the Applicant describes as the "avoidable cost difference", in that it reflects the additional amount that the Applicant has been required to pay over and above that which the Applicant paid to secure flights on 21 July 2024, and for which he remains out of pocket once the amount that the Applicant has recovered has been taken into account.
7. Viewed that way, it can be seen that the Applicant will recover (through amounts already paid by the Respondent and the orders that I will make) the whole of the $4,422.82, which was the additional cost incurred by him in securing flights from Paris to Sydney following the Respondent's failure to issue tickets for the 21 July 2024 flights.
8. For those reasons, and having regard to the principles set out above, I am satisfied that that amount - namely, $1,41.82 - reflects the Applicant's loss as it relates to the additional costs incurred to return to Sydney.
9. Accordingly, I will award the Applicant the sum of $1,414.82 in relation to this aspect of the Applicant's claim.
10. I note that at one point that the Respondent advanced a submission (albeit faintly) that the Applicant had failed to mitigate his loss in securing flights from Paris. I reject that submission and accept the Applicant's evidence that he searched for available flights at short notice and secured what were the most cost effective flights that were available, even though they departed from Paris and necessitated travel from London to Paris to take them. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Applicant took appropriate steps to mitigate his loss.

Airbnb accommodation in London (18-21 July) - $676.43

1. The Applicant claims the cost of Airbnb accommodation in London from 18 - 21 July 2024. In written material lodged on 31 July 2025, the Applicant advanced this aspect of his claim as follows:

I'd like to clarify the basis of my accommodation claim totalling $676.43, for the duration of my stay in London from 18th July 2024 - 21 July 2024.

The accommodation cost I'm seeking reimbursement for was used, not wasted. I paid for and stayed in that accommodation during what I believed was a valid and complete trip arrangement. The reason I raise this cost is not because the accommodation was lost or unused, but because it was directly tied to travel plans that were never fully honoured by the respondent.

The core of my position is this:

• The respondent failed to issue the tickets for my scheduled return trip.

• This failure only became known to me on the final day of my stay, when I was due to check out and fly home.

• Had the respondent fulfilled their obligations and issued the tickets as promised, this would have been a normal, completed trip - and there would be no dispute.

• However, because they did not issue the return tickets, I was effectively stranded and forced to make new, urgent arrangements - and the accommodation I had just paid for and used now forms part of the financial burden of that breach.

Importantly, I am not arguing that the accommodation was wasted or unused, but that it was part of a trip that was fundamentally disrupted due to the respondent's failure to provide a key component of the service - the return journey.

In this context, the accommodation cost becomes part of the consequential loss caused by the failure to issue tickets, especially since I may not have travelled - or would have arranged different accommodation - if I had known in advance that I couldn't return as planned.

1. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has suffered a loss of the cost of this accommodation.
2. As the Applicant clearly stated in his written material, the costs associated with that accommodation were not wasted in that the accommodation was used. Further, the Applicant had determined to delay his departure until 21 July 2024 and would have incurred accommodation costs associated with the extended stay in London between 18 and 21 July even if the Respondent had not engaged in the contravening conduct. Put another way, I am not satisfied that the Applicant was required to incur those additional costs as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct. Rather they were incurred as a result of the Applicant's decision to extend his stay in London.
3. Accordingly, I reject this aspect of the Applicant's claim.

Train Fare from London to Paris ($886.28) and one nights accommodation in Paris ($120.46)

1. As set out above, I am satisfied that the Applicant acted reasonably in securing return flights to Australia departing from Paris on 22 July 2024.
2. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Applicant suffered a loss in that he was required to incur the costs associated with travelling to Paris and an additional night's accommodation on 21 July 2024. Unlike the accommodation costs in London for which the Applicant claimed, in my view those costs were incurred as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct and would not have been incurred had the Respondent issued tickets for travel on 21 July 2024.
3. Having regard to the principles set out above, I am satisfied that the Applicant acted reasonably in travelling from London to Paris to take that flight by train, and that the amounts incurred were reasonable and represent an appropriate assessment of the Applicant's loss.
4. Accordingly, I will award the Applicant the sum of $1,006.74 in respect of these aspects of the Applicant's claim.

1. The Applicant claims "incidentals", including food, local transport costs, and "essential services".
2. In his written material lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025, the Applicant advanced this aspect of his claim as follows:

In response to the request for additional detail, I confirm that the sixteen transaction receipts incurred between 21-22 July were all directly caused by Gotogate's failure to issue the return tickets as contractually expected. These incidental costs arose solely due to the unexpected and unplanned extension of my stay in the European Union while attempting to resolve the issue.

The expenses fall into the following general categories:

• Transportation: Airport transfers and urgent travel between accommodation and airline service points

• Meals and sustenance: Basic food and beverages during the extended stay

• Essential incidentals: Items such as mobile data access, personal hygiene products, and airport-related expenses

None of the transactions exceeded $100 individually, and all were reasonable, necessary, and proportionate in the context of being stranded overseas without warning. All receipts have already been submitted in evidence.

I respectfully submit that requiring further granularity - such as listing exact food items or Uber pickup points - adds little probative value given the nature, timing, and modest value of these transactions.

Thank you for your consideration.

1. The Applicant relied on bank records that record a series of transactions, including on 21 and 22 July. However, the evidence does not enable me to identify what was purchased or what service was acquired in each of those transactions, and thus I am unable to make an assessment of whether the expenses claimed properly reflect the loss suffered by the Applicant as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct.
2. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant would likely have incurred some additional expense as a consequence of having to travel to Paris and stay an additional day abroad. However, it does not necessarily follow that each and every amount incurred between 21 and 22 July 2024 falls into that category. Further, the fact that the amounts are individually small does not mean that the Applicant absolved from the responsibility of establishing his loss by evidence.
3. Having regard to the state of the evidence, and the approach adopted by the Applicant to this aspect of his claim, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the "incidentals" claimed properly reflect the Applicant's loss as a result of the Respondent's contravening conduct.
4. Accordingly, I reject this aspect of the Applicant's claim,

1. The Applicant also claims $186.75 in international transaction fees. The Applicant says that those amounts were incurred "directly resulting from emergency bookings and associated purchases". The amount claimed by the Applicant relates to four charges, two of $77.40, and one of $31.02 and $0.93.
2. Having regard to the Applicant's bank records in evidence, I am satisfied that the two internation transaction fees of $77.40 were related to the purchase of the Qantas airfares from Paris to Sydney (which was paid for across two transactions). Having regard to the principles referred to above, and the conclusions that I have reached, I am satisfied that those transaction fees represent an aspect of the loss sustained by the Applicant. I am satisfied that they were incurred as a consequence of the Respondent's contravening conduct, in that they were amounts incurred in purchasing alternate flights to Sydney following the Respondent's failure to issue tickets for the booked flights on 21 July 2024.
3. In relation to the amounts of $31.02 and $0.93, whilst I am satisfied from the bank records in evidence that those fees were incurred, I am unable to determine the transaction(s) to which they relate. In this respect, both were recorded on 23 July 2024, and (unlike the transaction fees considered immediately above) were not charged in close proximity to another identifiable transaction. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that those amounts form part of the loss sustained by the Applicant as a result of the Respondent's contravening conduct, and I reject this aspect of the Applicant's claim.
4. For those reasons, I will award the Applicant the sum of $144.80 in respect of this aspect of the Applicant's claim.

1. For the reasons set out above, I will award the Applicant the sum of $2,698.36, comprised of:

(1) $132 in respect of the "Rebooking Fee" paid to the Respondent on 18 July 2024;

(2) $1,414.82, in respect of the additional cost incurred by the Applicant in securing flights to Sydney (which takes into account the fact that the sum of $3,008 has already been returned to the Applicant);

(3) $1,006.74 in respect of travel to and accommodation in Paris on 21 July 2024;

(4) $144.80, in respect of transaction fees.

1. I also note that in the Applicant's written material lodged on 31 July 2025, the Applicant suggests that he has not yet received the amount of $796 that the Respondent acknowledged it had received from Emirates on the Applicant's behalf, and which in the Respondent's written submissions, it had indicated a preparedness to pay to the Applicant. There was no express claim made for that amount by the Applicant in his written material lodged on 31 July 2024, and accordingly I will not make an order in relation to that amount. However, if the Respondent holds any amounts refunded by Emirates on the Applicant's behalf (including the sum of $796 referred to in the Respondent's written submissions) they should be paid to the Applicant forthwith.
2. The balance of the Applicant's claim is rejected.
3. In reaching those conclusions I have considered the matters set out in section 79U of the Fair Trading Act, and I am satisfied that the orders I will make are fair and equitable to all the parties to the claim.

1. I have extracted some of the content of the Applicant's communications with the Respondent above. There were many more emails in evidence sent by the Applicant which adopted similar a similar tone and approach and used similar language. The Applicant's communications with the Respondent's solicitor also adopted a similar tone and some contained personal reflections on those legal practitioners.
2. Although I have not found it necessary to refer to expressly refer to the terms of those communications in these reasons, I consider it appropriate to say something about them.
3. First, they contain repeated (and serious) allegations of criminality and fraudulent conduct on the part of the Respondent. For the benefit of the reader of these reasons, although I have found some (but not all) aspects of the Applicant's claim advanced under the Australian Consumer Law and in contract to have been established, nothing I have said in these reasons should be understood as an acceptance of those incredibly serious allegations made by the Applicant in that correspondence. These reasons concern only my consideration of the Applicant's claim advanced pursuant to the Australian Consumer Law and for breach of contract.
4. Secondly, as set out clearly on the Tribunal's webpage, the Tribunal expects parties to always treat each other with respect, whether when before the Tribunal or in correspondence. Regrettably, some of the correspondence sent by the Applicant in this case - which, I note the Applicant placed before the Tribunal - both with the Respondent and with the Respondents legal representatives fell well short of that standard. Even allowing for the frustration that I accept the Applicant experienced as a result of what occurred, and in his attempts to engage with the Respondent, aspects of the correspondence sent by the Applicant (including to the Respondent's legal representative) was, in my view, inappropriate. To the extent that it contained reflections on the conduct of the Respondent's legal representatives, it is appropriate that I record that there is nothing in the material before the Tribunal that would support the view that they had acted improperly in their representation of the Respondent in these proceedings.

1. For the reasons set out above, I will make the following orders:

(1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $2,698.36 immediately.

(2) The balance of the Applicant's claim is dismissed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.