Atkins v Future Wheels Pty Ltd - [2024] QCAT 233

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Atkins v Future Wheels Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 233

PARTIES:

EDWARD ATKINS

(applicant)

v

FUTURE WHEELS PTY LTD (ACN 169 768 478)

(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL112-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2024

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member George

ORDERS:

1. The Respondent must pay to the Applicant the sum of $33,380.05.

CATCHWORDS:

USED MOTOR VEHICLES – GUARANTEE OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY – MAJOR FAILURE TO COMPLY – where defects in motor vehicle detected post-sale – where defects rendered motor vehicle unsafe and unroadworthy – whether major failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality – where consumer rejected the motor vehicle – where consumer entitled to refund of purchase price and consequential loss and damage

Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) sections 54, 259, 260, 262, 263

Fair Trading Act 1984 (Qld) sections 16, 20, 50A
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) section 12(1)(a)

Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] 196 FCR 145

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr Edward Atkins

Respondent:

Mr Ben Fletcher

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Edward Atkins applies to this Tribunal for relief pursuant its jurisdiction under section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1984 (Qld) (‘FTA’). Relief is sought against Future Wheels Pty Ltd (‘Future Wheels’) following its sale of a motor vehicle to Mr Atkins in or about March 2023.
At the hearing of this matter, Mr Atkins appeared on his own behalf and Mr Ben Fletcher appeared for Future Wheels. Mr Fletcher said that Future Wheels was no longer trading but was not in liquidation.

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

Mr Edward Atkins

Mr Atkins gave evidence that he entered into a contract with Future Wheels for the purchase of a 2016 Holden Colorado, Queensland Registration Number 283GQ4, on 28 March 2023 (‘the Colorado’). The contract is Exhibit 2. The purchase price was $32,670 including GST. The contract says that the odometer reading was then 127,254 km. He did not sign the contract and a copy was not provided to him until 24 April 2023, however, a tax invoice dated 30 March 2023 was provided and he made payment on 31 March 2023. The tax invoice is Exhibit 4.
The Colorado was collected by Mr Atkins on 7 April 2023 and at about this time he was provided with a copy of a roadworthy certificate by Future Wheels. It is Exhibit 5. That roadworthy certificate states that an inspection was carried out by Mr Nicholas Bray of “Garage 84”, Unit 18, 225 Brisbane Road, Biggera Waters on 4 April 2023 when the Colorado’s odometer reading was then 127,435 km, and that the car passed every inspection item.
Mr Atkins then drove the car from Future Wheels’ premises at Unit 12, 225 Brisbane Road, Biggera Waters to his home in Mission Beach. During the drive he noticed an oil leak coming from the engine bay. On 19 April 2023, his local mechanic,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Atkins v Future Wheels Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCAT 233
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Atkins, brought proceedings against the Respondent, Future Wheels Pty Ltd, seeking a refund of the purchase price and consequential loss and damage after discovering defects in a used motor vehicle post-sale. The dispute was heard in the Australian Consumer Law and was overseen by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Applicant alleged that the vehicle was sold under a guarantee of acceptable quality, which was breached due to the presence of serious defects rendering the vehicle unsafe and unroadworthy.

The court was required to determine whether the defects in the vehicle constituted a major failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality as outlined in the Australian Consumer Law. Specifically, the court needed to assess the extent of the defects, their impact on the vehicle's safety and roadworthiness, and whether the Applicant's rejection of the vehicle was justified. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedy for the Applicant, including whether a refund of the purchase price and compensation for consequential loss and damage were warranted.

The court found that the defects in the vehicle were significant and rendered it unsafe and unroadworthy, thereby constituting a major failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. The Applicant's rejection of the vehicle was deemed reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the court ruled that the Applicant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price and compensation for the consequential loss and damage. The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $33,380.05, which included the purchase price of the vehicle and additional compensation for the Applicant's loss and damage.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent must pay to the Applicant the sum of $33,380.05.

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.