The right to a refund does exist, it has a conditional basis to activate that right. The Court/'Tribunal is not deciding on the right, they are deciding whether the fault is in fact meeting the criteria to enable the refund. Just because someone wants a refund does not mean a business needs to offer them carte blanche. If a dispute erupts that means that a business does not believe the fault requires the remedy and the consumer believes it does, then someone outside that dispute has to make a decision. Some businesses take an attitude that they will make a complainant take every step possible to achieve the right, this recalcitrance is perhaps what needs to be penalised or penalised more heavily and this penalising may achieve a better outcome when a business knows the penalty is worse than the fix.
Before the ACL made statutory rights for consumers, a consumer would have to fight under the implied conditions and warranties of the Trade Practices Act and about 20 State based laws (who would need a legal expert then just to ensure they were covered and by what law). Now a consumer only has to prove the fault meets the standard of a major fault for the right to become activated.
