The Ruby Princess, often referred to as the most disastrous cruise ship in Australian history, has recently faced backlash from passengers due to a hidden clause in the terms and conditions. Passengers seeking compensation for their COVID-19 plagued cruise during the early days of the pandemic have discovered that they are excluded from participating in a class action.
The cruise, which set sail from Sydney on March 8, 2020, quickly became one of the first major outbreaks of the virus, resulting in the deaths of 28 passengers. Former nurse Susan Karpik, a Canadian citizen residing in British Columbia, is leading a class action against Carnival, the parent company of Princess Cruises, which operates the Ruby Princess.
Ms. Karpik alleges that Carnival failed to take reasonable care of passengers on the ill-fated cruise. However, Carnival argues that passengers were subject to different terms and conditions depending on the version of the contract they signed. Of the 2,651 passengers on board, 696 signed a United States contract containing a class action waiver clause, while 1,796 were subject to Australian terms with no such waiver, and 159 agreed to the United Kingdom terms and conditions.
The exclusion of overseas passengers from the class action has sparked outrage, especially among those who signed the US contract, like Ms. Karpik. Her lawyer, Justin Gleeson, argues that a section of Australian Consumer Law renders unfair terms in consumer contracts void. He claims that since Carnival conducts business in Australia, they are bound by Australian laws, and the waiver in the US contract is unfair.
Gleeson further asserts that the clause is unfair because it limits passengers’ rights to sue the carrier without placing a similar restriction on the carrier’s litigation options. He questions why Princess accepts class action claims from Australian passengers but excludes 700 others from the same action. He argues that the clause forces one party’s decision onto another before any service has been provided or any dispute has arisen.
The lawyers representing the cruise line contend that when a contract stipulates the resolution of disputes in a non-Australian court and in accordance with a law that upholds the validity of a class action waiver, there is no imbalance of rights caused by the waiver clause.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General has expressed support for Ms. Karpik and is seeking to intervene in her favor. The hearing is set to continue on Friday.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
