Melbourne tribunal orders A$180 cleaning deposit refund despite non-refundable invoice

The local civil tribunal in Melbourne ordered Owen Bell to return Leah Mercer’s A$180 deposit for a cancelled household cleaning booking, finding that his earlier refund promise governed despite a later invoice stating that deposits were non-refundable. It denied her separate request for compensation for the time the money was withheld and its alleged effect on her quality of life.

The dispute turned on two conflicting written terms: a booking message offering a refund if Mercer cancelled at least 48 hours ahead, and an invoice saying the opposite. Mercer cancelled within the promised deadline; the question was whether paying the invoice had displaced the earlier promise.

The tribunal gave weight to the original booking conversation, which identified the A$180 deposit and expressly set out the refund condition before the invoice was sent. Mercer’s reply asking Bell to send the invoice did not establish that she accepted a different cancellation term.

The paid invoice was important contrary evidence, but it did not explain its relationship to the earlier promise. Nor did the record show that Mercer agreed to replace that promise or that Bell clearly explained the conflict before she committed. Applying the supplied rules on specific consumer promises and fee disclosure, the tribunal found the earlier condition established.

The cancellation exchange recorded Mercer cancelling at 6 pm on Wednesday, 11 November, for the Saturday, 14 November, 9 am booking—more than 48 hours beforehand. That exchange proved timely cancellation and Bell’s reason for refusing repayment, rather than which term originally governed.

The original conversation was available for inspection on Mercer’s phone. Although the record did not describe independent verification, the tribunal treated it as evidence, not a missing document. Bell’s final submission also acknowledged its wording and the timely cancellation.

There was no proof of a specific loss from holding the booking time, or a term permitting Bell to retain part of the deposit despite his promise. Equally, Mercer provided no evidence of a specific, measurable additional loss supporting compensation beyond repayment.

Mercer’s representative argued that she paid in reliance on Bell’s message and complied with its cancellation condition. The submissions characterised his refusal as deception and sought both the full deposit and additional compensation. The judgment resolved the refund dispute without making a finding of fraud.

Bell relied on the paid invoice and said he had reserved the Saturday morning slot. He asked that the refund be denied or reduced, but ultimately acknowledged that he could not show an agreement replacing the earlier promise or a specific loss justifying a deduction.

The booking was for household cleaning in Melbourne on 14 November 2026. The invoice recorded payment of the deposit on Monday, 9 November. After Mercer cancelled, Bell confirmed cancellation but refused repayment by reference to the invoice.

The decision rests on the particular written exchange and the absence of proof that the refund promise was changed. It does not establish that an earlier message always overrides a later invoice. The tribunal also kept repayment of a proven deposit distinct from an additional damages claim requiring its own evidence.