Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
I too have just skimmed those, but interesting to note the following:
On appeal, Qantas argued that the Tribunal had erred in finding that an enforceable undertaking existed at the time of making a reservation and booking.
If you don't have an enforceable undertaking what do you have?
Quite!
But that Qantas case has to be read quite carefully, because the issue was whether there had been any taxable supply in the posited situation. I'm not sure that the court accepted that Qantas argument in reaching its conclusion in Qantas' favour. The interest in the reasoning, so far as the present discussion is concerned, was the apparent ready acceptance that there was a contract between the airline and the passenger before the passenger checked in (in fact, the posited situation was specifically one where the passenger did
not check in), and the relative ease with which
MacRobertson Miller was sidelined even though - as you rightly say - it technically remains binding High Court authority.
I'm reminded of the old lawyers' joke about how bad cases become "very distinguished" over time ...