Howse v Luke

[2025] QCAT 55

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Howse v Luke [2025] QCAT 55

PARTIES:

BELINDA VICTORIA HOWSE

(applicant)

v

CHRISTOPHER LUKE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL151-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.     Christopher Luke pay Belinda Victoria Howse the sum of $24,772.78 within 14 days of Order.

2.     Belinda Victoria Howse make available for collection by Christopher Luke or his agent motor vehicle Volkswagen Multivan registration number 108ZHX at a mutually agreed and reasonable time after date of Order.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where the applicant purchased a vehicle and experienced problems of black smoke emitted from the exhaust immediately after sale – where the applicant complained to the respondent motor vehicle dealer who claimed such was common with the particular vehicle – where the applicant was advised by a motor mechanic that the problem was a fuel injector – where the respondent refused to return the purchase price – where the applicant gave written notice of rejection of the goods within 17 days of sale – where the dealer disagreed – where the parties further engaged and the respondent purported to service the vehicle – where the condition of the vehicle worsened and the vehicle suffered continuous smoke and oil problems and then failure of the head gasket through overheating – where it was held that all problems were attributable to the defective fuel injector or injectors and there had been a major breach of the guarantee as to acceptable quality at time of sale – where the applicant commenced proceedings in the Tribunal some six months after acquisition of the goods – where it was held the letter of rejection had been effective – where damage done to the vehicle after supply and before the letter of rejection was an issue falling to the respondent to pursue but the respondent had failed to establish the date or circumstances of damage

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 s 54, s 259, s 260, s 262(1), s 263(6)

Effem Foods v Nicholls [2004] NSWCA 332

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151

Vautin v By Winddown, Inc. (formerly Bertram Yachts) (No 4) [2018] FCA 426

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 30 December 2022 the applicant, Ms Howse, purchased a 2013 Volkswagen Multivan from motor dealer Mr Luke[1] for $24,300.

   [1]At hearing it was agreed between the parties that the dealer/seller of the vehicle was Mr Christopher Luke. He, together with his brother, traded as Luke Family Motors, but the contract of sale of the vehicle was between Mr Christopher Luke and Ms Howse. The name of the respondent was corrected accordingly.

2. At the time the vehicle had travelled 223,435 kilometres.

3. Ms Howse experienced problems with the van and told Mr…