Jakota Pty Ltd v Luatua - [2018] QCATA 26

CITATION:

Jakota Pty Ltd v Luatua [2018] QCATA 26

PARTIES:	Jakota Pty Ltd t/a JDM Auto Wholesale (Appellant)
v
Keakulina Luatua (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL089-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The Orders made on 24 January 2017 are set aside.

4. The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE INFERENCES OF FACT INVOLVED – GENERALLY – where application for leave to appeal – where Adjudicator’s decision made findings of fact – whether findings of fact were open on the evidence – whether substantial injustice

SALE OF GOODS – SALE OF GOODS LEGISLATION – ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – REMEDIES OF BUYER – REMEDY FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY – where sale of old car – where defects noticed immediately – where buyer drove car for 12,000km and seven months before returning car – whether major failure – whether expert reports could be relied upon as evidence of condition of car at time of sale – whether car was of acceptable quality

Australian Consumer Law, s 29, s 54, s 260, s 262, s 265
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), schedule 1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142

Bialous v Budget Vehicles Pty Ltd (Motor Vehicles) [2013] NSWCTTT 130
Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Burton v Chad One Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 301
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hartelid v Sawyer & McClockin Real Estate Ltd [1977] 5 WWR 481
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Smart Choice Cars Pty Ltd t/as Warham Williams Motors v Wotton [2015] QCATA 63

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this appeal about?

On 27 January 2016, Keakulina Luatua bought a 2004 Nissan Patrol Wagon from Jakota Pty Ltd t/a JDM Auto Wholesale for $18,790.00. The odometer read 240,053km. Before signing the contract, Ms Luatua’s husband, Ise Luatua took the car for a test drive of for ten minutes and for “no more than about 50 yards away”.[1]
[1]Transcript dated 17 January 2017, 1-19, Line 1.
The JDM sales manager, John Kirk, told them the car is “good to go”, “there’s no other known issues with the car” and “it’s almost new considering the low kilometres that it’s done”.[2] Mr Luatua checked the odometer and said his recollection of its reading was “about 160,000 kilometres”.[3]
[2]Transcript dated 17 January 2017, 1-19, Line 45; 1-20, Lines 10-19.
[3]Transcript dated 17 January 2017, 1-20, Lines 31-32.
When Mr and Ms Luatua drove the car home, they could not lock the door…

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 Jakota Pty Ltd v Luatua 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: [2018] QCATA 26
Decision Date: 9 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jakota Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against a decision made by an Adjudicator, which ruled in favour of the respondent, Luatua. The dispute centred around the sale of a used car, with Luatua claiming that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality as required under the Australian Consumer Law. Luatua had purchased the car from Jakota Pty Ltd, noticed defects immediately, but drove the car for 12,000 kilometres and seven months before returning it. The primary issue for the court was whether the Adjudicator's findings of fact were open on the evidence and whether there was a substantial injustice warranting an appeal.

The court considered the principles of appellate review, emphasising that it should not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact made by a primary decision-maker unless there is a substantial injustice. The court examined the evidence presented, including expert reports, to assess the condition of the car at the time of sale and whether the reported major failure could be substantiated. It was also crucial to determine whether the delay in returning the car affected the reliability of the evidence regarding its condition at the time of sale.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the Adjudicator had not properly considered certain evidence and had made findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence. The court concluded that there was a substantial injustice, as the Adjudicator's decision did not accurately reflect the true condition of the car at the time of sale. Consequently, the Orders made on 24 January 2017 were set aside, and the application was dismissed. The appeal was allowed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The Orders made on 24 January 2017 are set aside.

4. The application is dismissed.

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.