Belomark Pty Ltd v Robinson (No 2)

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Belomark Pty Ltd v Robinson (No 2) [2020] QCATA 112

PARTIES:

BELOMARK PTY LTD T/AS AUTOBARN COOMERA UPPER COOMERA

(applicant/appellant)

v

DION ROBINSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL141-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO Beenleigh Q25-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the respondent claimed the applicant had damaged his vehicle in the course of providing mechanical services – where the applicant denied liability – where the respondent had the damage rectified at another repair shop – where an Adjudicator found the respondent liable – whether the Adjudicator took photographic evidence tendered by the applicant into account - where the cost of rectification far exceeded the costs of the initial service – whether the costs of rectification were reasonable – whether the applicant’s warranty had effect to deny the respondent’s claim

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2
s 60, s 267

Belomark Pty Ltd v Robinson [2020] QCATA 110
Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 3
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Robinson is the owner of a Subaru motor vehicle. The respondent (‘Autobarn Coomera’) owns an auto repair shop at Coomera. Mr Robinson engaged Autobarn Coomera to install certain additional features to his vehicle, including a new stereo system and a reversing camera.

2. Autobarn Coomera installed the equipment but the reversing camera did not work properly. Mr Robinson returned the vehicle and he was told the problem was with a reverse switch sensor in the gearbox.

3. Autobarn Coomera replaced the switch sensor but that did not fix the camera problem. He was told to take the vehicle away but bring it back and let them do more work on it. He drove away but a warning light came on. He returned the vehicle and Autobarn Coomera could not diagnose the problem. He was told the car could be taken away and they would look again when he brought it back. He drove away but then discovered the car was leaking oil from the gearbox.

4. He returned the car and after inspecting it Autobarn Coomera told him there was a hole in the gearbox housing. The hole was immediately adjacent to the reverse switch sensor which they had replaced. Autobarn Coomera denied being responsible for making the hole, however.

5. Mr Robinson commenced minor civil dispute – consumer dispute proceedings in the tribunal claiming the cost of repairing the hole plus the cost of inspecting the internals of the gearbox for additional damage and fixing the reversing camera done by other mechanics.

6. The claim was heard by an Adjudicator who…