54[2.250]Tourism and Hospitality Law in Australia9. once the tribunal has heard the evidence and submissions from each party, a decision is made by the tribunal by way of orders. The types of orders which can be made vary from tribunal to tribunal but in general terms include–(a) an order that the Respondent pays the Claimant money; (b) where money is owed, an order that the Claimant does not have to pay the Respondent;(c) an order for a refund; (d) an order that requires the Respondent to provide goods or services; (e) an order that a Respondent fixes a fault;5010. unless there is a valid appeal, all parties must comply with the order(s) made by the tribu-nal and it is an offence not to. Some jurisdictions require the order to be registered with a local court in order to be enforceable. Some recent travel cases in Consumer TribunalsUeda v Ecruising Pty Ltd and Southern Cross Safaris Australia Pty Ltd NSWCATCD 30[2.250]Facts: The Applicants were husband and wife seeking compensation in the amount of $20,184.85 from Ecruising Pty Ltd (First Respondent) and Southern Cross Safaris Aus-tralia Pty Ltd (Second Respondent). They claimed that a luxury migration tour of Africa that they purchased was not delivered. The tour included airfares, hotel accommodation and a 15 day land component covering Kenya, Tanzania and Zanzibar. In summary, the Applicants claimed: 1. The tour did not meet their expectations; 2. The itinerary was poorly planned; 3. Impressions in the advertisements did not reflect what was actually delivered; 4. The long days and missed meals caused stress and fatigue; 5. That they were particularly looking forward to seeing what was known as the ‘great migration’ and that they would need to go to great expenses again to view the migration and therefore claimed the amount of $20,184.45 from the Respondents.The First Respondent’s position was that the product they provided for was delivered and that the components of the tour such as flights and hotels were in fact delivered. In effect, they asserted that the Applicants expectations may have been too great or misplaced. The Second Respondent’s position included a submission that they had made no representa-tions to any of the Applicants but as a gesture of goodwill agreed to refund to the Applicants three lunches which were missed, which were $90 per person. Decision: The Tribunal found there was no case against the Second Respondent for misleading and deceptive conduct or misrepresentation. The main issue in the case related to the ‘migration’. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that the ‘Migration’ is ‘generally viewed as 50 See, eg, Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 79N; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 13.Loranes, Kairouz, and Hanna Jennifer. Tourism & Hospitality Law in Australia, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Pty Limited, 2018.