VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Civil Division 
Civil Claims List	
vcat reference No. C1784/2020	
CATCHWORDS	
Misleading and deceptive conduct; unconscionable conduct; special disadvantage; limited ability in the English language; sections 18(1) and 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law; Miller v BMW (2010) 241 CLR 357; Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447	

APPLICANT	Qiaoping Fan	
RESPONDENT	H&T Vic One Pty Ltd ACN: 614 584 084	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Member K. Knights	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF CLOSING SUBMISSIONS	23 February 2021 and 13 May 2021
13 June 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	18 November 2021	
CITATION	Fan v H&T Vic One Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 1369

OrderS
1.	H&T Vic One Pty Ltd ACN: 614 584 084 must pay Qiaoping Fan $34,670 under sections 236(1) and 243(d) of the Australian Consumer Law for the contravention of sections 18(1) and 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
2.	It is declared that the whole of the Deed of Service Agreement between H&T Vic One Pty Ltd ACN: 614 584 084 and Qiaoping Fan and dated 26 May 2017 is void and has been void ab initio under section 243(a) of the Australian Consumer Law, for the contravention of sections 18(1) and 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.

Member K Knights			

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	In person	
For Respondents	Mr. H Watkins, Counsel 
with Keypoint Law instructing solicitors	

Reasons
The parties and the claim
1	The Applicant, Qiaoping Fan, claims the sum of $34,670 from the Respondent, H&T Vic One Pty Ltd (H&T).
2	H&T assisted Ms Fan in the purchase of a house and land package and Ms Fan paid H&T $34,670 in the course of that transaction.
3	Ms Fan alleges that she was misled and deceived by H&T into paying it $34,670 on the basis that the sum was a “construction deposit” for the building of the house in the house and land package. H&T deny that the $34,670 was ever represented as a “construction deposit” and say that it was clearly explained and is clearly set out in the deed of service agreement that the $34,670 is for the work that H&T did for Ms Fan in identifying the house and land package suitable for her and assisting Ms Fan with the purchase (service fee).
4	Further or alternatively, Ms Fan alleges that because she does not read English and speaks only a few greeting words in English that Ms Fan suffers a special disadvantage and H&T has taken unconscionable advantage of Ms Fan’s limitations in the English language in signing her up to the deed of service agreement.  Ms Fan says that the deed of service agreement ought to be set aside. H&T deny that Ms Fan suffers any limitations in the English language or that they were aware of any limitations.
5	Further or alternatively, Ms Fan alleges that the term in the deed of service agreement that the $34,670 is a non-refundable service fee, is an unfair contract term. H&T deny that the term is an unfair contract term and say in any event it is the upfront price payable and so an exception to the unfair contracts regime in the Australian Consumer Law. 
The hearing
6	The hearing commenced on 23 February 2021 and was adjourned to 13 May 2021. 
7	Ms Fan appeared on her own behalf and had one witness, Hongchun Wen. Ms Fan required an interpreter in the Mandarin language.
8	H&T were represented by Mr Watkins of Counsel with an instructing solicitor. The following persons gave evidence for H&T:
•	Tao Tao Sha, investment manager at H&T in Melbourne.
•	Yun Zhang, general manager at H&T in Melbourne.
•	Polo Wang, senior manager at H&T in Melbourne.
The facts
9	The following facts are not in dispute:
•	Ms Wen and Ms Fan are friends.
•	In or about May 2017, Ms Wen commenced employment with an associate company of H&T being, H&T Realty Pty Ltd.
•	Within about a week of Ms Wen joining H&T Realty Pty Ltd, Ms Wen gave Ms Fan a brochure for a house and land package at “Grace Estate” that was being developed by Metricon.
•	Ms Fan was attracted to the house and land package at Grace Estate and with Ms Wen attended the display home. At the display home Ms Fan and Ms Wen met with Ms Wen’s colleague, Ms Sha. Ms Fan, Ms Wen and Ms Sha then travelled to visit lot 542 at Grace Estate. This was the lot that Ms Wen and Ms Sha recommended would be suitable for the house Ms Fan was looking to build. Collectively, the display home visit.
•	Following the display home visit, Ms Fan paid H&T a $5,000 expression of interest fee.
•	On 24 May 2017, being a few days after the display home visit, Ms Fan, Ms Wen and Ms Sha met again at the home Ms Fan was sharing with her husband and his parents. The purpose of this meeting was for Ms Fan to sign the contracts to purchase the house and land package at lot 542 at Grace Estate (signing meeting). Ms Fan had not seen the contracts prior to the signing meeting.
•	At all times, Ms Fan, Ms Wen and Ms Sha conversed in the Mandarin language.
10	There was dispute as to the contracts that Ms Sha brought to the signing meeting. Ms Fan and Ms Wen both gave evidence that Ms Sha brought two contracts only, being the contract of sale for Lot 542 (land sale contract) and the Metricon new home contract (building contract). Ms Sha says that she also brought with her the deed of service agreement that provides for the $34,670 non-refundable service fee (service agreement). Ultimately, over the course of the hearing, Ms Fan came to accept that she had signed the service agreement at the signing meeting. Although, Ms Fan says that the service agreement was not presented as a separate contract or translated into the Mandarin language.
11	Following the signing meeting, Ms Fan paid a total of $59,270 of which Ms Fan understood $24,600 was the deposit for the land (inclusive of the $5,000 expression of interest fee) and $34,670 was the deposit for the construction cost of the house. H&T say the $34,670 was the non-refundable service fee.
12	The building contract provides that the deposit is $17,335, being 5% of the $346,700 construction cost of the house. H&T say that it would never have referred to the $34,670 as a construction deposit because the deposit under the building contract was the different amount of $17,335.
13	On 1 August 2019, Metricon requested an extension of time to complete the building contract. Ultimately, Ms Fan decided not to agree to the extension and to terminate the contract of sale of land and the building contract. Ms Fan did this on 12 December 2019 and the $24,600 that Ms Fan had paid for the land was refunded. H&T told Ms Fan that the $34,670 was not a construction deposit but a non-refundable service fee.
Evidence of what occurred at the signing meeting
14	Ms Fan gave the following evidence as to the signing meeting:
•	The signing meeting was approximately two hours long. 
•	Ms Sha brought two contracts only, being the land sale contract and the building contract.
•	Ms Sha translated the land sale contract and the building contract from the written English word to the Mandarin language. Ms Sha did this because Ms Fan told Ms Sha that Ms Fan could not read in English.
•	Ms Sha explained the cost of $24,600 being 10% deposit for the land and $34,670 being 10% deposit for the construction of the home.
•	Ms Sha’s translation and explanation did not refer to a non-refundable service fee and definitely not to $34,670 for H&T’s service.
•	Ms Fan signed and initialled the contracts and Ms Wen signed as a witness to Ms Fan’s signature.
•	At the end of the meeting, Ms Sha took the contracts with her to be signed by the vendor of the land and the builder. No contracts were left with Ms Fan.
•	Ms Fan was not aware that she had signed the service agreement until the service agreement was sent to her on 13 December 2019 when Ms Fan asked H&T for a refund of the $34,670 construction deposit.
•	Ms Fan acknowledges that the signature on the service agreement is her signature and says that she believes it must have been presented as being within the building contract.
•	Ms Fan says that there was no mention of a service agreement at the signing meeting.
15	Ms Wen gave the following evidence as to the signing meeting:
•	Ms Sha only brought the land sale contract and the building contract to the signing meeting. Ms Sha translated the written English words in the contracts to Mandarin from the front page to the last page of those two contracts. Ms Fan signed the agreements and Ms Wen witnessed Ms Fan signing the agreements.
•	Ms Wen acknowledges that it is her signature that witnesses Ms Fan signing the service agreement but Ms Wen says that there was no third contract and Ms Sha did not translate or explain that there was a service fee. Ms Wen says that she did not know of the service agreement or the service fee at the signing meeting.
•	Ms Sha took both of the contracts with her at the end of the signing meeting. There was no third service agreement and Ms Sha did not leave any contracts with Ms Fan.
16	Ms Sha gave the following evidence as to the signing meeting:
•	Ms Sha brought the following three contracts to the signing meeting: the land sale contract, the building contract and the service agreement. Ms Sha had two copies of each of the three contracts.
•	Ms Sha translated all three contracts word for word from the written English language to the Mandarin spoken language.
•	Ms Sha explained the service agreement to Ms Fan. Ms Sha told Ms Fan 1% of the fee would be paid to the builder as a deposit and 9% to H&T for its service fee. Ms Sha told Ms Fan that the service fee was non-refundable.
•	Ms Fan could not have confused the $34,670 service fee with the construction deposit because under the building contract the construction deposit was $17,335.
•	Ms Sha said after all three contracts were signed, Ms Sha left a single copy of the service agreement with Ms Fan and Ms Sha took both copies of the land sale contract and the building contract because these contracts needed to be signed by the land vendor and the builder, Metricon.
Findings in relation to what occurred at the signing meeting
17	H&T say that Ms Wen’s evidence as to the signing meeting ought to be disregarded because Ms Wen is influenced by her friendship with Ms Fan and has left the employ of H&T.
18	H&T also say that Ms Wen’s evidence that she did not know of the service agreement as a third contract and that under the service agreement Ms Fan agreed to pay $34,640 as a non-refundable service fee is not believable because Ms Wen had achieved the REIV statement of attainment on 7 June 2016 and this included the ability to identify legal and ethical requirements of property sales to complete agency work and literacy in accessing and interpreting contracts. Further, the REIV course in which Ms Wen achieved the statement of attainment was taught and assessed in the English language.
19	Having heard the evidence of Ms Fan, Ms Wen and Ms Sha and having considered the documents signed by Ms Fan on 24 May 2017 and the agreed facts prior to that date, I prefer the evidence of Ms Fan and Ms Wen to that of Ms Sha. I make this finding for the following reasons:
•	It is not believable that Ms Fan would have agreed to pay a $34,670 non-refundable service fee when the service that H&T had provided to Ms Fan prior to the signing meeting consisted of attending on Ms Fan at the display house meeting, driving Ms Fan to visit Lot number 542, collation of the contracts and bringing those contracts to Ms Fan at the signing meeting.
•	The sum of $34,670 is 10% of the construction price for the home. Ms Fan says that the $34,670 was referred to as a “construction deposit” at the signing meeting. Ms Fan says that she agreed to pay the $34,670 on the representation from Ms Sha that it was a construction deposit. I find this far more logical and therefore believable than Ms Sha’s evidence that it was clearly explained to Ms Fan that the $34,670 was a non-refundable service fee.
•	Ms Fan gave evidence that she would have expected any payment to be made to H&T for its service to be paid by the land vendor or builder. I, similarly, find this far more logical and therefore believable than the $34,670 non-refundable service fee that H&T alleges Ms Fan agreed to pay it.
•	The three contracts that H&T allege were translated word for word from the English written word to the Mandarin language total more than 150 pages. Whilst Ms Fan and Ms Wen both agreed with H&T’s counsel that the contracts they signed were translated word for word, I do not find that this could have been done in the signing meeting - which it was agreed took approximately two hours. Consequently, I do not find that the three contracts were translated word for word from the English written word to the Mandarin spoken language. I find that, whilst Ms Sha gave the impression that the contracts were being translated word for word, that did not in fact occur in respect of the three contracts that were signed.
•	H&T attached its signature to the service agreement on 26 May 2017. This is two days after the signing meeting. This is inconsistent with Ms Sha’s evidence that Ms Sha left both copies of the service agreement with Ms Fan at the signing meeting on 24 May 2017. The signing of the service agreement two days after the signing meeting is consistent with the evidence of Ms Fan and Ms Wen that Ms Sha took all of the contracts with her at the end of the signing meeting.
•	Whilst I find Ms Wen is competent in the English language as certified in the REIV statement of attainment dated 7 June 2016, I do not find that Ms Wen had access to any of the contracts, including the service agreement, prior to the signing meeting. Further, I find that in witnessing the service agreement, Ms Wen was witnessing that Ms Fan had signed the document in front of Ms Wen on 24 May 2017. I do not find that Ms Wen made any representations to Ms Fan in respect of the service agreement or the service fee prior to or at the signing meeting. I do not find that Ms Wen’s friendship with Ms Fan has tainted Ms Wen’s evidence as to what occurred prior to or at the signing meeting.
•	Neither Ms Fan nor Ms Wen had seen any of the contracts prior to the signing meeting. Consequentially, both Ms Fan and Ms Wen were reliant upon Ms Sha’s translation and explanation of the contracts.
•	I find that Ms Fan had very limited ability to understand and could not read the English language at the time of the signing meeting. I find that this was known by H&T and that is the reason that Ms Sha purported to translate the contracts from the English language into the Mandarin language at the signing meeting.
20	Because I prefer the evidence of Ms Fan and Ms Wen as to what occurred at the signing meeting over the evidence of Ms Sha, I find, on the basis of Ms Fan’s and Ms Wens’ evidence, that H&T engaged in the following conduct at the signing meeting:
•	H&T represented that the $34,670 sum is a construction deposit;
•	H&T failed to translate to the Mandarin language or explain that the $34,670 sum is a service fee;
•	H&T failed to translate to the Mandarin language or explain that the $34,670 service fee is non-refundable;
•	H&T represented that Ms Fan was signing two contracts only, being the land sale contract and the building contract; 
•	H&T failed to explain that Ms Fan was signing a third contract, being the service agreement; and
•	H & T failed to translate to the Mandarin language or explain the terms of the service agreement,
(collectively, the H&T signing meeting conduct).
21	I find that at the signing meeting, Ms Fan signed the service agreement and that agreement included the following provisions:
Clause 1.1 (f)	Service Agreement Amount: Is the amount which the client will pay into H&T’s nominated Trust Account being the amount of $34,670 (being an amount equal to 10 percent of the built amount).
Clause 4.1	PAYMENT BY THE CLIENT TO H&T - Money to go into H&T Trust Account. The parties agree that in consideration (identified below) that the Client will pay to H&T the Service Agreement Amount, and both parties will comply with their various other obligations imposed by this agreement.
The parties agree that the consideration includes:
a)	H&T has already performed substantial work for the client, including H&T has identified potential house and land packages suitable to the client, and the client wants to now proceed to purchase a particular house and land package. 
b)	Both parties agree to work on finding the client a suitable house and land package, and
c)	Both parties agree to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.
Clause 4.2	The client agrees that it will pay into H&T’s nominated Trust Account the Service Agreement Amount being the amount of $34,670.
…
Clause 4.4	The client specifically agrees, notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, that the client authorises and directs H&T to make payment of the Service Agreement Amount from its Trust Account money held for the client, into H&T’s general account as payment from the client to H&T (and declares that such payment will no longer be trust money). Such payment to H&T’s general account, may be made by H&T at any time (including immediately upon payment being so made into the Trust Account by the client). The client specifically acknowledges that such payment into H&T’s general account is not a penalty but a genuine estimate of the loss and damages that H&T has suffered and paid as a result of the work performed by H&T on behalf of the client. Such payment is irrelevant to any contract or agreement which the client may make of a vendor or builder regarding a House and Land Package; and the payment to H&T is absolutely not refundable and not able to be otherwise clawed back or demanded by the Client.
…
Clause 4.7	Payment of the Service Agreement Amount to the Builder:
a)	Subsequent to the Client complying with clause 4.2, then in the event the Client enters (or has already entered) the contracts relevant to the land package (being the Contract for the Sale of Land, and the contract for the construction of the residence on that land) then H&T will pay to the Builder the sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the Service Agreement Amount. The Builder is the entity whom the Client has entered the construction agreement to build the residence on the lot of the property.
b)	In the event that both the contracts relevant to the land package have gone to completion, then H&T will pay to the Builder the sum equivalent to 90% (ninety percent) of the Service Agreement Amount.
Clause 18	Disclosure: The parties acknowledge that H&T may be acting for the Builder.
22	Misleading and deceptive conduct
23	Section 18(1) Australian Consumer Law provides that:
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
24	I find that the H&T signing meeting conduct occurred in trade or commerce and was misleading and deceptive because: 
•	whilst under clause 4.7 of the service agreement, the $34,670 sum is to be paid to the builder in the event that both the land sale contract and the building contract have gone to completion, the $34,670 is not a construction deposit;
•	the $34,670 sum is a service fee under clauses 1.1 (f), 4.1 and 4.4 of the service agreement;
•	the $34,670 service fee is non-refundable under clause 4.4 of the service agreement;
•	Ms Fan in fact signed three contracts, being the land sale contract, the building contract and the service agreement; 
(collectively, the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct).
25	Ms Fan has signed contracts that Ms Fan has not read because she cannot read the English language. The contracts are significant. They are contracts to purchase a house and land package and require payment of significant sums; being $246,000 under the land sales contract, $346,700 under the building contract and $34,670 under the service agreement. I find that in signing these contracts without taking the contracts away for independent translation and advice, Ms Fan has acted in careless disregard for her own interest.
26	In the case of Miller v BMW, French CJ and Kiefel J (as she then was) in the High Court of Australia stated the following in respect of a plaintiff that received a policy but failed to read it and then alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in respect of the defendant’s failure to inform the plaintiff that the policy did not contain a cancellation clause:
[S] 52 does not require a party to commercial negotiations to volunteer information which will be of assistance to the decision-maker of the other party. A fortiori it does not impose on a party an obligation to volunteer information in order to avoid the consequences of the careless disregard, for its own interests, of another party of equal bargaining power and competence.
27	However, Ms Fan was not of equal bargaining power and competence with H&T. I find that H&T was aware that Ms Fan was incapable of reading the contracts that she was signing and completely reliant upon Ms Sha’s translation and explanation of those contracts. I find this because Ms Sha purported to, and Ms Fan and Ms Wen believed, that Ms Sha had translated word for word the content of the contracts that Ms Fan was signing and Ms Wen witnessing.
28	The case of Miller v BMW, involves consideration of what might reasonably be expected to be disclosed by one party to another in a commercial transaction. The case of Miller v BMW, is distinguishable from Ms Fan’s case because Ms Fan was not of equal bargaining power and competence with H&T. In any event, I do not find that it would be reasonable to expect that H&T would engage in such flagrant misleading and deceptive conduct.
29	It is the conduct of H&T that is in issue. That conduct is to be assessed with reference to its circumstances and context. I find that whilst Ms Fan has acted in careless disregard for her own interest, H&T has taken advantage of Ms Fan’s inability to read the English language by engaging in the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct. 
30	In Corones’ Australian Consumer Law  four examples are given of steps which a supplier can take to mitigate the risk of documents not being understood, including:
•	Drafting the relevant documents in “plain English”; 
•	Taking extra care where the language in which the documents are written is not the first language of the party;
•	Providing a genuine opportunity for the other party to obtain independent legal advice; 
•	Requiring the other party to obtain a certificate from their legal advisors, confirming that those advisors have explained the nature and the effect of the agreement (and any other documents) to them. 
31	I find that H&T did not take steps to ensure Ms Fan understood the contracts that she was signing. 
32	I find that the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct was in contravention of section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
33	In the initial application and the points of claim, Ms Fan seeks an order for the amount of $34,670.
34	Ms Fan submitted an amended points of claim document with Ms Fan’s closing submissions. The amended points of claim and Ms Fan’s closing submissions include a claim for interest that was not in the initial application and the points of claim. Ms Fan made no application to amend her claim to include interest. There was no claim for interest at the time of the hearing. I do not find it fair to amend the claim after the hearing. Consequently, I will not be making any order for interest.
35	I find that Ms Fan has suffered loss in the sum of $34,670 because of the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct and that the conduct contravened section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law. I find that under sections 236(1) and 243(d) of the Australian Consumer Law, it is appropriate to order H&T to pay Ms Fan $34,670 for the contravention of section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
36	Further, having regard to the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct that led to Ms Fan entering into the service agreement, I find that under section 243(a) of the Australian Consumer Law it is appropriate to declare that the whole of the service agreement is void and has been void ab initio.
Unconscionable conduct
37	Section 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law provides: 
A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with: 
(a)	the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person; or
(b)	the acquisition or possible acquisition of goods or services from a person;
engage in conduct that is in all the circumstances, unconscionable. 
38	Section 21(4) of the Australian Consumer Law sets out the interpretive principles that indicate the Parliament’s intention regarding the scope of s.21 as follows: 
It is the intention of the Parliament that:
(a)	this section is not limited by the unwritten law in relation to the unconscionable conduct; and 
(b)	this section is capable of applying to a system of conduct or pattern of behaviour, whether or not a particular individual is identified as having been disadvantaged by the conduct or behaviour; and 
(c)	in considering whether conduct to which a contract relates is unconscionable, the court’s consideration of the contract may include consideration of: 
(i)	the terms of the contract; and 
(ii)	the manner in which and the extent to which the contract is carried out; 
and is not limited to consideration of the circumstances relating to formation of the contract.
39	The unwritten law relating to unconscionable conduct includes equitable relief associated with the unconscientious exploitation of a special disadvantage such as lack of, or limited comprehension of the English language.
40	For equity to intervene in a case of special disadvantage the following three elements must be satisfied: 
•	The person identified must be suffering from a special disadvantage vis-à-vis the stronger party.
•	The stronger party must have knowledge of that special disadvantage or it must be sufficiently evident. 
•	There must be a taking advantage by the stronger party of the other person’s special disadvantage in a way that offends good conscience.
41	In the case of Tonto Home Loans Australia Pty Ltd v Tavares it was observed that the determination of whether conduct is unconscionable is highly factually dependent. In that case Allsop P stated: 
“It is neither possible nor desirable to provide a comprehensive definition. The range of conduct is wide and can include bullying and thuggish behaviour, undue pressure and unfair tactics, taking advantage of vulnerability or lack of understanding, trickery or misleading conduct. A finding requires an examination of all the circumstances.”
42	Having examined all of the circumstances leading up to Ms Fan signing the service agreement, I find that the above three elements of special disadvantage are satisfied as follows:
•	Ms Fan’s inability to read in the English language and limited comprehension of the English language puts Ms Fan at a special disadvantage vis-à-vis H&T.
•	H&T was aware of Ms Fan’s special disadvantage. That is why Ms Shah was purporting to translate from the written English word into the Mandarin language.
•	H&T has taken advantage of Ms Fan’s special disadvantage by misleading and deceiving Ms Fan into signing the service agreement. Whilst Ms Fan believed that the $34,670 was a construction deposit payable pursuant to the building contract, in fact Ms Fan had signed the service agreement that provided the $34,670 was a non-refundable service fee for H&T’s service. Ms Fan had no expectation of paying any money for H&T’s service. Ms Fan expected that the land vendor or the builder would pay a commission for H&T’s service. I find the way in which H&T has taken advantage of Ms Fan’s special disadvantage to achieve the $34,670 non-refundable service fee offends good conscience.
43	I find that H&T was in contravention of section 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law by engaging in conduct in connection with the supply of service to Ms Fan that is in all the circumstances, unconscionable.
44	I have already found the following:
•	That under sections 236(1) and 243(d) of the Australian Consumer Law, it is appropriate to order H&T to pay Ms Fan $34,670 for the contravention of section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
•	Having regard to the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law that under section 243(a) of the Australian Consumer Law it is appropriate to declare that the whole of the service agreement is void and has been void ab initio.
45	Now that I have found the H&T misleading and deceptive conduct to also be unconscionable conduct in contravention of section 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, I find that it is appropriate to make the following orders:
a.	Under sections 236(1) and 243(d) of the Australian Consumer Law, H&T must pay Ms Fan $34,670 for the contravention of sections 18(1) and 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
b.	Under section 243(a) of the Australian Consumer Law, the whole of the service agreement is void and has been void ab initio for the contravention of sections 18(1) and 21(1) of the Australian Consumer Law.
Unfair contract term
46	Given that I am making orders that declare the service agreement void ab initio, there is no utility in determining whether or not the service agreement included an unfair contract term under section 23 of the Australian Consumer Law.
VCAT fee
47	The VCAT application fee was waived.  Consequently, no order is made for the VCAT application fee.

K. Knights
Member