A cruise ship passenger who demanded full compensation due to his neighbours ‘loud snoring’ has had his appeal rejected in court.
Brendan Ritson and his partner already had their requests accommodated to on the 11-day Royal Caribbean South Pacific cruise.
The cruise left Sydney in December of 2016 en route to Fiji, and the couple found a water leak in their interior cabin that same night.
The cruise left Sydney in December of 2016 en route to Fiji, and the couple found a water leak in their interior cabin that same night
The couple were upgraded to an expensive exterior double cabin, equipped with a porthole window
The couple were then upgraded to an expensive exterior double cabin, equipped with a porthole window.
Mr Ritson told the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Court a mother and daughter moved into the adjoining connected cabin on the third night of the cruise.
He claimed the pair kept he and his partner awake all night for various reasons, including loud snoring, heated arguments and the use of offensive language.
After making a complaint when the ship returned, Mr Ritson brought an application into the Tribunal, initially seeking a refund for all monies paid whilst on board the ship, totalling to $3,270.29.
This was reduced at the hearing to cover only the cost of the accomodation, $2436.78.
The appeal’s tribunal heard Mr Ritson did not complain about the noise of his neighbours until the eighth day of the cruise, five days after they moved in.
The tribunal report read ‘much of the pleasure of a cruise is enjoying the facilities and entertainment and food’
The tribunal also found that the cruise ship attempted to remedy the situation appropriately and offered reasonable compensation for the inconveniences caused.
All of these attempts were rejected by Mr Ritson.
In three seperate occasions, the cruise ship offered to return the pair to a room equivalent to the original room booked.
Mr Ritson’s appeal was heard on the basis of the cabin he was moved to not being fit for purpose, as it did not provide the promised relaxation and enjoyment.
The appeal tribunal agreed that this may have been the case, but it was only a minor failure that would have been solved had Mr Ritson agreed to change rooms.
‘In all the circumstances it was unreasonable of Mr Ritson to refuse to move back to the grade of cabin he had paid for, which would have solved his problems,’ the court heard.
‘His claim to recover all or any part of the fares he paid based on a breach of the consumer guarantees of the ACL must therefore be refused.’
‘Being able to retire of an evening to a cabin and sleeping is of course part of the pleasure as well but surely not the entire measure of a vacation,’ the report also added