A Melbourne mother submitted an “expert hair report” after suing a glamorous salon owner, alleging her teenage daughter’s $700 hair-extension appointment had gone wrong.
Bianca Chung appeared frustrated and displeased when she faced the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on Friday. However, her claim against Oakleigh salon owner Claudia Giuliano was dismissed.
Ms Chung had sought $800 in damages from Ms Giuliano after her then 16-year-old daughter visited Salon Claudia Giuliano in Melbourne’s south-east on May 17 last year.
The tribunal heard the pair had agreed that the teenager would receive weft extensions and a haircut for $700.
Ms Giuliano disputed that account, saying she had agreed to apply taped extensions because the teenager liked to wear her hair tied back at school.
Weft extensions consist of long strips of hair sewn or attached in rows to a person’s natural hair. Tape extensions, by contrast, are applied in smaller sections with adhesive strips.
Both Ms Chung and Ms Giuliano provided VCAT with evidence, including photographs and written messages.
Ms Chung also submitted an “expert report” prepared by a “hair extension technician”.
Melbourne salon owner Claudia Giuliano (above) faced a lawsuit over allegations that she botched a hair-extension appointment. 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 visited Salon Claudia Giuliano (pictured) in Melbourne’s south-east on May 17 last year
Ms Chung alleged the salon owner had breached their contract by applying taped extensions instead of the agreed weft extensions.
She further claimed the extensions were not fit for purpose after two of them fell out.
Ms Giuliano denied breaching any agreement, arguing that her contract was with the daughter. She also maintained that the work had been carried out professionally.
Ms Chung argued the agreement was between herself and Ms Giuliano because her daughter was a minor when the appointment took place.
The mother said she had reached an agreement with Ms Giuliano through Instagram direct messages on May 10 last year for her daughter to receive “weft extensions for a price of $700”.
Ms Chung said the arrangement was confirmed when she and her daughter arrived at the salon a week later, on May 17.
Ms Giuliano said she could not remember the girl’s mother being at the salon that day or discussing the service with her.
The salon owner recalled speaking only with the teenager, who told her she wore her hair tied back. Ms Giuliano said that was an “important factor” in choosing taped extensions as the “preferred method”.
Ms Giuliano stood by the quality of her work, describing it as “professional”
Ms Giuliano told the tribunal that weft extensions could “create additional tension” when hair was “frequently tied up”, whereas taped extensions “distribute weight more evenly”.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Pete Buttigieg Backs Independent Seth Bodnar in Montana Senate Race
She also said taped extensions were often preferred by clients who liked to tie their hair back.
Ms Giuliano claimed the teenage daughter agreed that taped extensions would be best for her ‘lifestyle 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.
Throughout the hearing, the daughter appeared bored, yawning repeatedly.
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.
The girl said she paid for the service because her ‘mother had left the shop and hadn’t returned’.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
Ms Chung declined Ms Giuliano’s offer and instead accused the popular hairstylist of not providing the service with ‘due care and skill’.
She then engaged a ‘hair extension technician’ who provided an assessment on August 28 last year.
VCAT Member Robert Daly dismissed Ms Chung’s claim against Ms Giuliano (pictured)
Ms Chung submitted the expert’s report to the tribunal as evidence supporting her claim. She also paid that expert $100 to remove her daughter’s hair extensions.
Ms Giuliano responded that the extensions remained in place for more than 14 weeks, which ‘significantly exceeds the recommended maintenance 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’.
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.
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.