Hanif v Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanif v Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 187
Hearing dates: 29 August 2023
Date of orders: 29 November 2023
Decision date: 29 November 2023
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: J Searson, General Member
Decision:

(1) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must immediately accept Sabah Hanif’s return to it of the 2012 Mazda CX5 NSW Registration number DD70UW.

(2) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd are to be responsible for any towing costs in relation to the return of the vehicle to them.

(3) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must pay Sabah Hanif the sum of $26,729.10 on or before 31 December 2023.

(4) Upon Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd’s performance of Orders 1, 2 and 3 above Sabah Hanif must do all things necessary to transfer unencumbered title in the 2012 Mazda CX5 NSW Registration number DD70UW to Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd within 7 days.

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW — consumer guarantees – major failure – rejection of goods – rejection period – misleading and deceptive conduct — defective goods – costs.

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law NSW

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014

Fair Trading Act 1987

Motor Dealers and Repairs Act 2013

Cases Cited:

Alliance Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v Saman [2018] NSWCATAP 137

Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387

Avci v Inchurch Automotive Pty Ltd t/a Parramatta Motor Group [2019] NSWCATCD 39

Barbour v Autosports Five Dock Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 141

Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304

Burton v Chad One Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 301

Cary Boyd v Agrison Pty Ltd [2014] VMC 23

Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219

Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Producers Association [1969] 2 AC 31

in Contact Energy Ltd v Jones [2009] 2 NZLR 830

Matumaini v Automobile Industries Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 93

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 51

Miller & Associates Insurance Broking v BMW Australia Finance (2010) 241 CLR 357.

Munday v Empire Auto Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 52

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited & Anor v Ishak [2012] NSWSC 697

Petropoulos v CPD Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 54

Rekrut and Scott v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd; Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v Rekrut and Scott [2018] NSWCATAP 97

Rigby v LDV Automotive Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] QCAT 316

Sacks v Hammoud [2016] NSWCATAP 225

Safi v Heartland Motors Pty Ltd t/as Heartland Chrysler [2016] NSWCATAP 80

Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1

Witton v Taupo Motor Company Limited 29 November 2010

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Sabah Hanif (Applicant)

Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant (Self Represented)

Mr Brown (Respondent)
File…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanif v Car Mart Direct 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
[2023] NSWCATCD 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sabah Hanif purchased a 2012 Mazda CX5 from Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd, and subsequently discovered defects in the vehicle. Hanif sought relief under the Australian Consumer Law for the supply of goods that were not of acceptable quality, did not match their description, and were not fit for purpose. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Hanif argued that the vehicle was a major failure, justifying rejection within the statutory period, and that Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by selling defective goods.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing consumer guarantees and the right to reject goods, as well as the circumstances in which misleading and deceptive conduct may be found. The key issues were whether the defects constituted a major failure warranting rejection, and whether Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd had misled Hanif about the condition of the vehicle. The court found that the defects in the Mazda CX5 amounted to a major failure, and that the respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by selling the vehicle knowing it was defective.

In light of these findings, the court ordered that Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must accept the return of the vehicle and bear any associated towing costs. Hanif was awarded damages for the cost of the vehicle, plus interest. The court also ordered that upon Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd’s compliance with these obligations, Hanif must transfer the vehicle’s title to the respondent. This decision reinforces the importance of consumer protection laws and the remedies available to consumers who are sold defective goods.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must immediately accept Sabah Hanif’s return to it of the 2012 Mazda CX5 NSW Registration number DD70UW.

(2) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd are to be responsible for any towing costs in relation to the return of the vehicle to them.

(3) Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must pay Sabah Hanif the sum of $26,729.10 on or before 31 December 2023.

(4) Upon Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd’s performance of Orders 1, 2 and 3 above Sabah Hanif must do all things necessary to transfer unencumbered title in the 2012 Mazda CX5 NSW Registration number DD70UW to Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd within 7 days.

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.