Burton v Chad One Pty Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burton v Chad One Pty Limited [2013] NSWDC 301
Hearing dates:31 October 2013
Decision date: 01 November 2013
Before: Olsson SC DCJ
Decision:

1.Appeal is upheld.

2.The decision of the Tribunal is quashed.

3.I order that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for hearing.

Catchwords: CTTT appeal - Meaning of 'acceptable quality' in Australian Consumer Law - consideration of effect of s.24 of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 (Form8) on s.54(3) of Australian Consumer Law
Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Consumer Claims Act 1998
Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Fair Trading Act 1987
Interpretation Act 1987
Motor Dealers Act 1974
Motor Dealers Regulation 2010
Sale of Goods Act 1908 (NZ)
Trade Practices Amendment (ACL) Act No.2 2010
Cases Cited: Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387
Contact Energy Ltd v Jones [2009] 2NZLR 830
Edyp v Brazbuild Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 218
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145
Witton v Taupo Motor Company Limited Auckland Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal 29 November 2010
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: GREGORY JOHN BURTON (Plaintiff)
CHAD ONE PTY LIMITED (ACN 082 837 812) (Defendant)
Representation: Mr P Batley (Plaintiff)
Mr G Rundle (Defendant)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Plaintiff)
Savio Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):2013/204541
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

Nature of appeal

  1. The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Consumer Trader &Tenancy Tribunal ("CTTT") delivered on 6 June 2013.

  1. The plaintiff appeals under s.67 of the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 ("CTTT Act") which relevantly provides that if in respect of any proceedings the Tribunal decides a question with respect to a matter of law, a party in proceedings who is dissatisfied with a decision may, subject to the section, appeal to the District Court against the decision.

  1. The scope of an appeal under s.67 of the CTTT Act was considered by the Court of Appeal in Edyp v Brazbuild Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 218 in light of the High Court decision in Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 32. Allsop P (as he then was) gave a detailed analysis of s.67 and at [35] said:

"The essential first task in any appeal under s.67 is therefore to identify the express or implied decision on a question with respect to a matter of law. Without the existence or identification of such a decision, the District Court will have no authority or jurisdiction to review the decision of the Tribunal. The relevant decision will have a clear relationship with any asserted "error of law".

  1. At [36] His Honour said:

"One will thus be assisted in identifying the relevant decision (express or implied) by understanding the question, the answer and the error that was posed, answered or said to have been made by the Tribunal."

Factual background

  1. The applicant purchased a second hand 1998 model Nissan…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burton v Chad One 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
[2013] NSWDC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burton initiated legal proceedings against Chad One Pty Limited, contesting the quality of a vehicle sold to him under the Australian Consumer Law. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently appealed to the relevant appellate court. Burton contended that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality as defined by section 54(1) of the Australian Consumer Law. He argued that the vehicle had significant defects that were not disclosed by Chad One, and that these defects rendered the vehicle unsuitable for its intended use.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the term 'acceptable quality' as it pertains to consumer goods under the Australian Consumer Law, particularly in light of section 24 of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 (Form8). Burton sought clarification on how this statutory provision affects the consumer's rights and obligations under the Australian Consumer Law. The court had to determine whether the defects in the vehicle constituted a breach of acceptable quality and if the statutory provision altered the consumer's rights in any way.

The court examined the definitions and scope of 'acceptable quality' as stipulated in the Australian Consumer Law. It considered the interplay between the statutory provisions of the Motor Dealers Act 1974 and the Australian Consumer Law. The court found that the Motor Dealers Act 1974 did not override the consumer protection provisions under the Australian Consumer Law and that the defects in the vehicle met the criteria for being of unacceptable quality. The court determined that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the law, leading to an unjust outcome for Burton. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal is upheld.

2.The decision of the Tribunal is quashed.

3.I order that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for hearing.

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.