Hodges v Let's Go Caravans Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 224

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hodges & Anor v Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 224

PARTIES: NEIL ANDREW HODGES

(first named applicant)

ROBYN HODGES

(second named applicant)

v

LET’S GO CARAVANS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL098-22

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:
1. Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd is required to collect the caravan the subject of these proceedings from Robyn Hodges within 28 days of the date of these orders.

2. Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd is required to pay to Robyn Hodges the amount of $45,678 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

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 goods rejected during the rejection period – whether consumer entitled to refund

Australian Consumer Law, s 3, s 54, s 260, s 262, s 263

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 109X
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A, s 50C
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld),
s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 40

Campbell v Caravan & RV Central Pty Ltd t/as Avan New South Wales & FCA Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 90

Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 44
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 1520

Nesbit v Porter [2000] 2 NZLR 465

REPRESENTATION & 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

Introduction

On 11 May 2022, Mr and Mrs Hodge (the applicants) filed an application – motor vehicle dispute with the Tribunal. The named respondent is Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd (the respondent).
The second named applicant entered into a contract with the respondent on 18 September 2021 to purchase a 13’ X-Scrape Offroad 2021 caravan (the caravan). The purchase price was $45,240.
‘Motor vehicle’ is defined in s 12(1) of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) to mean:
(a) a vehicle that moves on wheels and is propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is capable of being operated or used in a normal way; or
(b) a caravan.
The second named applicant’s caravan falls within this definition.
The applicants seek relief under the Australian Consumer Law, which is schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The relief sought by the applicants is a refund plus damages.
Section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to motor vehicles in respect of…

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 Hodges v Let's Go Caravans 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] QCAT 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with resolving a dispute between Robyn Hodges and Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd, a caravan retailer. The primary issue was whether the caravan purchased by Ms Hodges from the respondent was of acceptable quality, as defined under the Australian Consumer Law. Ms Hodges sought a refund and damages due to various defects in the caravan, including water ingress, storage bin leaks, misaligned roof and module, flickering bed-side lights, a missing securing screw for the awning, and an air vent that opened while travelling. The respondent did not contest the claim, and the tribunal found that the caravan was not of acceptable quality as it was not free from defects and was not durable.

The tribunal found that the defects identified by an engineering report were significant enough to warrant a rejection by Ms Hodges within the rejection period, which she had done. Consequently, the tribunal ordered that Let’s Go Caravans Pty Ltd collect the caravan from Ms Hodges within 28 days and pay her a refund of $45,240. Additionally, the tribunal allowed damages in the amount of $80 for forfeited holiday deposits, as it was a reasonably foreseeable loss given the circumstances. The tribunal did not award the additional damages claimed for loan repayments and insurance payments due to insufficient evidence. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the prescribed filing fee of $358, considering it in the interests of justice given the respondent's failure to contest the claim.

Orders