Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited - [2022] NSWCATCD 55

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 55
Hearing dates: 6 December 2021, 31 January 2022
Date of orders: 20 April 2022
Decision date: 20 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S Hanstein, General Member
Decision:
The application is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW — Consumer guarantees — Supply of services — Guarantee as to due care and skill — Motor vehicle — Whether repairs done with due care and skill

Legislation Cited:
Australian Consumer Law (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hueter v Learn To Trade Pty Limited [2018] NSWCATCD 71

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Bates (Applicant)
Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
Respondent (Self-represented)

File Number(s): MV21/39839
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay the cost of repairs to his 2001 Ford Transit Winnebago (“Vehicle”) which he claims are necessary as a result of previous repairs (involving the supply and installation of a second hand engine) not being carried out by the respondent with due care and skill.

Relevant law

Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) (“ACL (NSW)”) provides that: if a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill. Whether s 60 of the ACL (NSW) has been breached requires an objective assessment of whether the services provided were provided with reasonable care and skill, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the type of services to be provided and the price of the services (Hueter v Learn To Trade Pty Limited [2018] NSWCATCD 71 at [86]).

Applicant’s case

The applicant seeks the cost of repairs as set out in two quotes provided by All Haul Transport Pty Ltd (“All Haul”), dated 31 August 2021: one to remove and replace the gearbox and clutch (“Gearbox Repairs”); and the other to remove and replace sump and crank angle sensor and bracket (“Engine Repairs”).
The applicant claims the Engine Repairs are necessary as there is a crack adjacent to the sump pan and the applicant alleges this was either present when the engine was installed by the respondent or was caused by the respondent during the installation. Also, the crank angle sensor has been glued in.
The applicant claims the Gearbox Repairs are necessary as the clutch bearing sleeve had not been installed correctly when the respondent installed the clutch, causing damage to the gearbox.
The applicant claims he took the Vehicle back to the respondent several times during the warranty period including for oil leaks. The only oil leak they fixed was in relation to the vacuum pump as the applicant provided a new vacuum pump and gasket and the respondent installed them free of charge. The applicant was informed that he would have to pay for any work to fix oil leaks and, unhappy with the service from the respondent, he later…

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 Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited 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: [2022] NSWCATCD 55
Decision Date: 20 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited involved a dispute between a customer, Bates, and an automotive repair service, Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited, over the quality of repairs performed on a motor vehicle. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the defendant had met the statutory consumer guarantee as to due care and skill in performing the repair work. The consumer sought damages for the perceived lack of due care and skill in the repairs done on their vehicle.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited had breached the consumer guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law by failing to exercise the requisite degree of care and skill in repairing the motor vehicle. The court had to consider whether the defendant's actions met the statutory standard of due care and skill, and if there was sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of a breach. The court also needed to assess the evidence provided by both parties regarding the quality and adequacy of the repairs performed.

The court examined the evidence presented, including expert opinions on the quality of the repairs, the procedures followed by the defendant, and the expectations of a reasonable consumer in such circumstances. It was determined that the defendant had exercised the requisite degree of care and skill in performing the repairs, and that there was no breach of the statutory guarantee. The court found that the repairs met the industry standards and that the defendant had acted in accordance with the reasonable expectations of a consumer. As a result, the application for damages was dismissed, and the defendant was not held liable for any breach of the consumer guarantee.

The final orders of the court were that the application for damages brought by Bates against Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited was dismissed. The court found no evidence of a breach of the statutory guarantee as to due care and skill in the repair of the motor vehicle. The defendant was not required to pay any damages to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 55
Hearing dates:	6 December 2021, 31 January 2022
Date of orders:	20 April 2022
Decision date:	20 April 2022
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	S Hanstein, General Member
Decision:	The application is dismissed.
Catchwords:	CONSUMER LAW — Consumer guarantees — Supply of services — Guarantee as to due care and skill — Motor vehicle — Whether repairs done with due care and skill
Legislation Cited:	Australian Consumer Law (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Hueter v Learn To Trade Pty Limited [2018] NSWCATCD 71
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Paul Bates (Applicant) Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-represented) Respondent (Self-represented)
File Number(s):	MV21/39839
Publication restriction:	Nil