FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| A1 PERFECT PLUMBING & ANOR v BMW PRESTIGE | [2006] FMCA 674 |
| TRADE PRACTICES − Where theft of motor vehicle held in defendant’s possession for the purpose of repairs − whether misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 in representing respondent would service and return the motor vehicle to the applicant − whether unconscionable conduct in business transaction under ss.51AB & 51AC of the TPA. BAILMENT − Where bailment of hire of work and labour − whether defendant bailee discharged burden to prove appropriate care was taken of the bailed good − whether defendant bailee discharged onus to prove failure to take appropriate care did not contribute to loss of bailed good − whether defendant provided sufficient security measures and took reasonable precautions to prevent theft and ensure safety of motor vehicle. |
| Trade Practices Act 1974, ss.52, 51AB, 51AC, 51A Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Pt 21 Rule 21.10 |
| Mooregate Tobacco v Phillip Morris (1981) 45 CLR 457 Tottenham Investments Pty Ltd v Carburettor Services Pty Ltd (1994) ATR 81-292 Frank Hauser v Mark Dykes Pty Ltd [1960] VR 376 Davis v Pearce Parking Station [1954] 91 CLR 642 Edelson v Musty’s Service Station & Garage (1956) OWN 848 Houghland v RR Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd (1962) 2 All ER 159 Gerrard & Anor v Slamar [2004] WASCA 253 Hobbs v Petersham Transport Pty Ltd [1971] 124 CLR 220 Scoway Pty Ltd v Faxon Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 249 |
Halsbury’s Laws of Australia [40-385], [40-405]
Palmer on Bailment, 2nd Edition (1991) (The Law Book Company Limited, Sydney), [49]
Court Forms, Precedents and Pleadings – NSW [15,005]
| First Applicant: | A1 PERFECT PLUMBING PTY LIMITED |
| Second Applicant: | REEMA TOUMA |
| Respondent: | BMW PRESTIGE PTY LIMITED T/AS ALTO BMW |
| File number: | SYG 1555/2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 May 2006 |
| Date of last submission: | 3 May 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 11 May 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | C. Evatt |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Teakle Ormsby George |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | A. Parker |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Moroney Betts |
ORDERS
Respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $89,425.80 as damages for breach of the contract of bailment made on 31 May 2004.
Respondent to pay the applicant interest upon the said damages in the sum of $15,677.69.
Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed in accordance with Part 21 Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1555 of 2005
| A1 PERFECT PLUMBING PTY LIMITED |
First Applicant
REEMA TOUMA
Second Applicant
And
| BMW PRESTIGE PTY LIMITED T/AS ALTO BMW |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(As corrected)
On the morning of 31 May 2004 Ms Reema Touma drove the first applicant’s BMW 201-M3 coupe, registration number 0187, to the respondent’s service centre, where it had been booked in for some warranty and other service work to be carried out. Upon arrival at about 10:30a.m. she saw Gregory William…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read A1 Perfect Plumbing v BMW Prestige and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FMCA 674
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether BMW Prestige had breached the terms of the bailment agreement and whether the damages claimed by A1 Perfect Plumbing were directly attributable to this breach. The court examined the terms of the bailment contract and the standard of care BMW Prestige was obliged to uphold. Additionally, it considered whether BMW Prestige could be held liable for the damages claimed, including whether the damages were a foreseeable consequence of the alleged breach.
In its decision, the court found that BMW Prestige had indeed breached the contract of bailment by failing to return the vehicle in the same condition as it was received. The court determined that the evidence presented by A1 Perfect Plumbing was sufficient to establish that the damages claimed were a direct result of BMW Prestige's negligence. Consequently, the court ordered BMW Prestige to pay A1 Perfect Plumbing $89,425.80 as damages, along with interest of $15,677.69. Furthermore, BMW Prestige was required to pay the applicant’s costs as per the stipulated assessment procedure.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $89,425.80 as damages for breach of the contract of bailment made on 31 May 2004.
2.
Respondent to pay the applicant interest upon the said damages in the sum of $15,677.69.
3.
Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed in accordance with Part 21 Rule 21.10 of the
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.