Caruana v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Caruana v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 512

PARTIES:

LESLEY CARUANA

(applicant)

DAVID CARUANA

(APPLICANT)

v

MARKET DIRECT GROUP PTY LTD 

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL189-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matters

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Richlands

DECISION OF:

Member Jensen

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – whether caravan of acceptable quality – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – whether consumer entitled to damages

Australian Consumer Law, s 54, s 259, s 260

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2

FairTrading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A, s 50C

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Mr Zammit

REASONS FOR DECISION

Issues

1. The issue for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to damages under the Australian Consumer Law (the ‘ACL’) with respect to alleged safety issues relating to an XT 16 HR Island Caravan (the ‘caravan’) purchased by the applicant from the respondent during May 2022. In particular, the issue is whether the respondent supplied a caravan to the applicant that was of acceptable quality as required by section 54(2) and (3) of the ACL.

2. The applicant’s claim is for $78,990 being the reimbursement of the purchase price of the caravan or in the alternative the sum of $10,000 costs incurred in rectifying problems with the caravan plus legal costs of $880 and compensation of $50,000 being the devalued value of the caravan for resale. The respondent rejects the claim and contends that the caravan is safe and fit for purpose.

3. The two applicants are Mr and Mrs Caruana. In these reasons, unless I refer to them by name, they will be referred to collectively as the applicant.

Jurisdiction

1. Pursuant to section 50A of the Fair Trading Act1989 (Qld), the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction in relation to motor vehicles in respect of certain actions under the ACL. A motor vehicle is defined in section 12(1) of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act2014 (Qld) to include a caravan. As a caravan is the subject of the application, I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

The respondent’s obligations

1. A pre-requisite of the ACL is that goods must have been acquired as a consumer. Pursuant to section 3(1)(b) of the ACL, a person is taken to have acquired goods as a consumer “if the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption.”

2. Section 54(1) of the ACL provides that where a person supplies goods in trade and commerce, the goods are guaranteed to be of acceptable quality. The time at which the goods are to be of acceptable quality is the time they are supplied to the consumer.[1]