Appeal won: tribunal can hear a $22,040 claim over five cancelled cruises (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant was offered five cruises by RCL Cruises Ltd, trading as Royal Caribbean Cruises, as a result of gambling over a certain amount in the onboard casino on earlier cruises. He selected and booked each cruise, paid any extra money required, such as taxes or an added passenger, and received a confirmation invoice for each one.

On 15 January 2025, three days before one of the cruises was due to depart, a representative of the cruise line telephoned him to say that all five cruises had been cancelled, including the one about to leave. He says he was not told why. On 17 January 2025 he went to the port of Brisbane with his partner and his son, holding the tickets he had been issued, and waited over an hour before two staff told the family they were not allowed to cruise. Again, he says, no explanation was given.

The cruise line's position was that it had intended to provide the cruises when it took the bookings, but after a review of his play in the onboard casino its Global Security team placed him on a 'no-sail list'. It said its Guest Conduct Policy formed part of its terms and conditions, that it had absolute discretion to add a customer to the no-sail list, and that it did not have to justify that decision further. It said the casino house rules prohibited certain behaviours and styles of play, including card counting, and that by breaching those rules he had broken the terms of the promotional scheme and lost the right to the free cruises.

He applied to QCAT using a Form 1 minor civil dispute application for a consumer and trader dispute about services, seeking $22,040.83 plus the $379.50 filing fee. On 3 November 2025 an adjudicator dismissed the application, finding it was not a minor civil dispute and so was outside the tribunal's power to decide.

What each side wanted

The applicant argued the adjudicator made a legal error in three ways: by not treating the claim as one for a fixed sum of money, by looking at the nature of the benefit (a cruise) rather than the nature of what he was asking for (payment of a specific amount), and by not considering that a contract can give rise to a debt when it is breached or cancelled. He asked for the dismissal to be set aside, for a declaration that his claim was a minor civil dispute, and for the matter to go back to QCAT for a hearing. The cruise line's answer went to the substance rather than jurisdiction: the applicant, not the cruise line, had broken the contract by breaching the casino house rules, so no reimbursement was owed, and the rules were not unfair because they were publicly available on its website and emailed to him when he booked.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the tribunal's decision of 3 November 2025. The application was remitted, meaning sent back, to the tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

The Appeal Tribunal also ordered that the respondent's name in the records of both the tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal be changed to 'RCL Cruises Ltd t/as Royal Caribbean Cruises'.

No money was ordered to be paid. The claim for $22,040.83 was not decided; whether the applicant succeeds on a claim for damages for breach of contract over the five cruises is for the tribunal to work out when it hears the matter again.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Appeals in minor civil disputes need the Appeal Tribunal's permission, known as leave, under section 142 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. Leave is generally given only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision involved an error and an appeal is needed to correct a substantial injustice, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance. The Appeal Tribunal was satisfied there was a reasonable argument the adjudicator had taken the wrong approach to whether this was a consumer and trader dispute, so leave was granted and the appeal decided as a rehearing.

Section 11 of that Act gives QCAT power to hear a 'minor civil dispute'. That term is defined in Schedule 3. One limb covers a claim arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader that is for payment of money of a value not more than the prescribed amount, which is the tribunal's dollar limit for these claims. At the first hearing the adjudicator read that limb as requiring the contract itself to provide for payment of money, and said a contract 'simply to provide services' was not enough.

The Appeal Tribunal disagreed with that reading. The contract did not need to be for the payment of money to the applicant; it needed to give rise to a claim for the payment of money. A claim for damages for breach of contract is an example, and that was one of the arguments the applicant had raised. The Appeal Tribunal found there was a contract to provide services: the applicant's side of the bargain was spending money in the onboard casinos to qualify for the free cruises, and the contract was formed when he chose a cruise, paid any extra money required, and the cruise line sent a confirmation invoice. He fell within the definition of a 'consumer', a person for whom services are supplied for fee or reward, and the cruise line was a 'trader', a person who in trade or commerce carries on a business of supplying goods or providing services. The amount claimed was under the limit. On that reasoning QCAT did have jurisdiction.

The Appeal Tribunal accepted one part of the adjudicator's view: QCAT has no power in a minor civil dispute to deal with claims about unfair contract terms or unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. Because the first hearing had focused on jurisdiction, the Appeal Tribunal could not be satisfied the parties had been fully heard on whether the damages claim should succeed, so it sent the matter back rather than deciding it.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the tribunal's power over a small consumer claim is worked out. The question is not whether your contract says a sum of money will be paid to you. It is whether the contract gives rise to a claim for money, such as damages for breach, and whether the amount is within the tribunal's limit for minor civil disputes. A contract for services, including one where what you paid was not cash at the counter, can still be the basis of a money claim.

It also shows the limits. QCAT hearing a minor civil dispute is not the place for arguments about unfair contract terms or unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, and the appeal stage decided only the jurisdiction question, not who was right about the cancelled bookings. A tribunal must satisfy itself that it has power to decide a matter even if neither side raises the point, and an appeal from a minor civil dispute needs leave before it can be heard at all.

Where a cruise, flight, tour or other booked service is cancelled and the business will not refund or reimburse, the step most people take first is a written demand to the business that sets out the bookings, the amounts and the outcome sought, with a deadline, before any application to a tribunal or court.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a QCAT application. More decisions: QCAT cases and faulty goods and refunds.

Source: Mark Timothy Grant v RCL Cruises Ltd [2026] QCATA 137 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.