Catherine Whitty, a physiotherapist from Melbourne, won a refund from high-end fashion brand Prada, because of a champagne stain she cannot remove from her Prada skirt she bought for $1,660.

Ms Whitty won the case when Prada also failed to remove the stain even with a tag saying the skirt can be dry-cleaned by professional.

The case was heard at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tibunal (VCAT).

In an interview with ABC News, Ms Whitty said that she only took the case to the court after months of contacting the company but to no avail.

"What I had said at VCAT was that when you purchase a piece of clothing it is implied that you can clean simple stains. I feel champagne is a simple stain, a water soluble stain. That didn't happen in this case."

Afrter winning the case against Prada, Ms Whitty hopes she can wear the skirt again because she admits being a fan of Prada.

"I've bought other silk items from them and there was no problem. It was just this particular skirt. I'm not sure if it was the dye that was used or how it was treated," MS Whitty said.

In a detailed report from the Herald Sun, Ms Whitty shared that she bought the skirt from Prada flagship store on Collin St. She said she was clear that she was buying a skirt to be worn for a champagne celebration, but the sales staff did not warn her that the skirt's fabrics might not be suitable for the occasion.

Ms Whitty wore the expensive Prada skirt for her 40th birthday, but unfortunately, a guest spilled champagne on it.

She then brough the skirt to her drycleaner but was devastated when told that the stain cannot be removed and that any form of liquid splashed on the skirt becomes permanent stain.

In court, she argues that she invested on the expensive Prada skirt for being a timeless piece that she can wear for many times.

Albin Chen, retail operations manager from Prada argued that the staff sold the skirt to Ms Whitty, thinking it was suitable for the occasion fashion wise, without considering that champagne will be served in the party. He said that it was not the company's fault but of Ms Whitty's carelessness.

However, tribunal judge Peter Moloney ruled in favour of Ms Whitty and ordered Prada to refund her the full $1,660 for the skirt she can no longer use, citing that garments are expected to withstood usual spills or a rain shower.