The Ruby Princess was the most famous – and perhaps most disastrous – cruise ship in Australian history. But now passengers say one of the cruelest blows was hidden in the terms and conditions
The Ruby Princess was the most famous – and perhaps most disastrous – cruise ship in Australian history. But now passengers say one of the cruelest blows was hidden in the terms and conditions
- Ruby Princess passengers say they were denied boarding a fee
- A contract clause excludes passengers who have signed a US contract
Passengers seeking compensation for a cruise vacation plagued by COVID-19 in the early days of the pandemic claim a contract barring them from participating in a class action lawsuit is unfair.
A Ruby Princess voyage departing Sydney on March 8, 2020 quickly became one of the first major outbreaks of the virus and resulted in the deaths of 28 people who had been on board.
Former nurse Susan Karpik, a Canadian citizen living in the province of British Columbia, is leading a class action against Carnival cruise line.
Carnival trades as Princess Cruises and operates the Bermuda-registered Princess Cruise Lines Ruby Princess.
Ms Karpik said the company failed in its duty to provide reasonable care for passengers on board the ill-fated cruise.
A Ruby Princess cruise ship (pictured) departing Sydney on March 8, 2020 quickly became one of the first major outbreaks of the virus
But the company argued that passengers were subject to different conditions depending on which version of the contract they signed
But the company argued that passengers were subject to different conditions depending on which version of the contract they signed.
Of the 2,651 passengers on board, 696 were party to a contract in the United States that included a class action exemption clause.
There were 1796 passengers subject to Australian conditions, who had no such waiver, and 159 to UK general conditions.
Foreign passengers were therefore barred from participating in the class action, but Ms. Karpik, who signed a US version of the contract, is leading the fight to get back in.
Her lawyer Justin Gleeson told the High Court that part of Australian consumer law renders a provision of a consumer contract invalid if it is unfair.
He argued that Carnival was subject to Australian laws when doing business in Australia and that the term of the US contract waiving the right to participate in class actions was unfair.
“There were 2,600 people on the same ship going on the same cruise,” Mr Gleeson said.
It is perfectly acceptable for Princess to accept a class action claim from 1700 (Australian) passengers.
What did Princess do to prove a legitimate interest in accepting that they could exclude 700 other people from that action? They did nothing.’
Mr Gleeson further explained that the waiver clause was unfair because it limited passengers’ rights to sue the carrier, but placed no such limitation on the carrier’s ability to sue.
“A barrier has been put in place to prevent passengers from taking a lawsuit if there is no equivalent barrier for the carrier,” he said.
Of the 2,651 passengers on board, 696 were party to a contract in the United States that contained a class action exemption clause (pictured, a stock image)
“Before the service is provided or a dispute arises… before the passenger has any opportunity to consider class action, their decision has been made for them.
“The contract is forced on the other by one party.”
The cruise line’s lawyers argued in their statement that where a contract provided for the resolution of disputes in a forum other than an Australian court, and under any law upholding the validity of a class action waiver, there ” no imbalance has been caused in those rights’. under the contract by the class action waiver clause’.
The Commonwealth Attorney General tries to intervene in Mrs Karpik’s favour.
The hearing will continue on Friday.