A Melbourne mum presented an 'expert hair report' after suing a glamorous hair salon owner for allegedly botching her teenage daughter's $700 extension job.
uncertain
mum → present → job
Bianca Chung appeared displeased and annoyed as she fronted the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on Friday, where her claim against Oakleigh salon owner Claudia Giuliano was dismissed.
uncertain
claim → appear → Giuliano
Ms Chung sought $800 in damages from Ms Giuliano after her then 16-year-old daughter attended Salon Claudia Giuliano in Melbourne's south-east on May 17 last year.
uncertain
daughter → seek → May
The tribunal heard the mother and the salon owner had agreed to provide the teenager with weft extensions and a haircut for $700.
asserted
mother → hear → 700
However, Ms Giuliano claimed she had agreed to give the girl taped hair extensions because she liked to tie her hair back at school.
asserted
she → claim → school
Weft extensions are long strips of hair sewn or attached along rows of a person's natural hair, while tape extensions are applied in smaller sections using adhesive strips.
asserted
extensions → sew → strips
Both Ms Chung and Ms Giuliano submitted evidence to VCAT, including photos and written communications.
asserted
Chung → submit → photos
Ms Chung also submitted an 'expert report' from a 'hair extension technician'.
asserted
Chung → submit → technician
Melbourne salon owner Claudia Giuliano (above) was sued for allegedly botching a hair extension job.
uncertain
Giuliano → sue → job
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed the claim on Friday
Bianca Chung sought $800 in damages from Ms Giuliano after her then 16-year-old daughter attended Salon Claudia Giuliano (pictured) in Melbourne's southeast on May 17 last year
She alleged there was a 'breach of contract' because the salon owner gave her daughter taped, rather than weft, extensions.
uncertain
owner → dismiss → extensions
She also claimed the goods weren't fit for purpose after two hair extensions fell out.
asserted
extensions → claim → purpose
Ms Giuliano countered, saying she was not in breach because her contract was with the daughter, and defended her work as 'professional'.
Ms Chung argued the agreement was between herself and Ms Giuliano, as her daughter was a minor at the time of the hair appointment.
asserted
daughter → counter → appointment
The mum claimed she reached an agreement with Ms Giuliano via Instagram DMs on May 10 last year for her daughter to receive 'weft extensions for a price of $700'.
uncertain
daughter → claim → 700
Ms Chung said this deal was confirmed when she and her daughter attended the salon a week later, on May 17.
uncertain
she → say → May
Ms Giuliano said she could not recall the girl's mother attending the salon on that day, nor discussing anything about the service.
uncertain
mother → say → service
The salon owner said she remembers speaking only with the daughter, who mentioned tying her hair back, so Ms Giuliano said that was an 'important factor' in determining taped extensions as the 'preferred method'.
asserted
that → say → method
Ms Giuliano defended her work as 'professional'
asserted
Giuliano → defend → professional
Ms Giuliano explained that weft extensions may 'create additional tension' when the hair is 'frequently tied up', while taped extensions 'distribute weight more evenly'.
She also said taped extensions were often preferred by clients who liked to tie their hair back.
uncertain
who → explain → hair
Ms Giuliano claimed the teenage daughter agreed that taped extensions would be best for her 'lifestyle needs'.
asserted
extensions → claim → needs
The daughter, who attended Friday's hearing alongside her mother, gave evidence that she had asked Ms Giuliano for the 'dark hair package' and weft extensions.
asserted
she → attend → package
Throughout the hearing, the daughter appeared bored, yawning repeatedly.
asserted
daughter → appear → hearing
She said she 'became confused' when Ms Giuliano began applying taped extensions but 'didn't want to say anything' because she wasn't sure if she was getting weft extensions or not.
asserted
she → say → extensions
The girl said she paid for the service because her 'mother had left the shop and hadn't returned'.
asserted
mother → say → shop
She also told VCAT that she 'didn't say anything to her mother because she was worried she would be upset, as her mother was very definite about her having weft and not tape extensions'.
asserted
her → tell → extensions
Ms Giuliano offered to install weft extensions as an act of goodwill
Five days after the initial appointment, the daughter contacted Salon Claudia Giuliano to say two extensions had slipped.
Ms Giuliano offered to reattach the slipped extensions free of charge and was told 'they would get back to her,' but she didn't hear anything until Ms Chung reached out again on July 5 to make an official complaint.
asserted
Chung → offer → complaint
Ms Chung claimed it took her seven weeks to make the complaint because that was how long it had taken her to understand that her daughter had been given tape rather than weft extensions.
asserted
daughter → claim → tape
Ms Giuliano offered to replace the daughter's tape extensions with weft extensions at a discounted price of $350 as a 'gesture of goodwill', but not because she accepted the contract was for weft extensions.
asserted
contract → offer → extensions
Ms Chung declined Ms Giuliano's offer and instead accused the popular hairstylist of not providing the service with 'due care and skill'.
asserted
Chung → decline → care
She then engaged a 'hair extension technician' who provided an assessment on August 28 last year.
asserted
who → engage → August
VCAT Member Robert Daly dismissed Ms Chung's claim against Ms Giuliano (pictured)
uncertain
Daly → dismiss → Giuliano
Ms Chung submitted the expert's report to the tribunal as evidence supporting her claim.
uncertain
Chung → submit → claim
She also paid that expert $100 to remove her daughter's hair extensions.
asserted
She → pay → extensions
Ms Giuliano responded that the extensions remained in place for more than 14 weeks, which 'significantly exceeds the recommended maintenance period'.
asserted
which → respond → period
She also said the agreement was for taped extensions, the service took exactly three hours and 51 minutes, and the extensions were 'professionally installed'.
asserted
extensions → say → hours
Ms Giuliano provided 'before and after' photos to support her case and disputed the expert report, arguing it was prepared too long after the original appointment.
asserted
it → provide → appointment
VCAT Member Robert Daly dismissed Ms Chung's claim for $700 for the haircut, as well as the $100 paid to the hair technician to remove the extensions.
uncertain
Daly → dismiss → extensions
The Aporia
