Lear v GRP Trading Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2023] QDC 25

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lear v GRP Trading Enterprises Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 25

PARTIES:

MICK LEAR
(Plaintiff)

v

GRP TRADING ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 152 004 727) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE OZRODS TRADING UNIT TRUST

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3450/2023

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2023 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13, 14 February 2023

JUDGE:

Barlow KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $592,175.95, including interest in the sum of $120,935.95.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – the plaintiff made known to the defendant the purpose for which the defendant’s services were to be acquired the product delivered as a consequence of the application of the services was not suitable for the purpose – whether the plaintiff was a consumer – whether there was an implied guarantee under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – the plaintiff engaged the defendant to modify the plaintiff’s classic vehicle – whether the defendant undertook the work with due care and skill - whether the plaintiff was a consumer – whether there was an implied guarantee under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law

INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – AWARD OF INTEREST AS DAMAGES – IN QUEENSLAND – damages were awarded to the plaintiff for breach of contract – the plaintiff had paid most of the amount under the contract – whether it is appropriate to award interest on part of the damages

LEGISLATION

Australian Consumer Law (Cth) ss 3, 18, 60, 61
Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld) s 13

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 476

CASES

Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd (2006) 153 FCR 479, cited

COUNSEL:

J C Faulkner, for the plaintiff

No appearance for defendant

SOLICITORS:

HW Litigation for the plaintiff

Defendant not represented by solicitors

Introduction

Since he was a child, Mr Lear - the plaintiff - and other members of his family have had what he has described as a passionate interest in cars, including attending car shows and reading car magazines.
The defendant trades as OzRods, operating a business that includes vehicle restoration and customisation. It contends, in paragraph [9] of its defence (which the plaintiff admitted in his reply), that it held itself out as a hot rod and street machine specialist and its business was restoring and customising classic vehicles, hot rods and street machines.
In this proceeding, Mr Lear is suing the defendant for breach of contract, breach of statutory guarantees and misleading or deceptive conduct. The trial began on Monday, 13 February 2023. The defendant did…

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 Lear v GRP Trading Enterprises 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] QDC 25
Decision Date: 15 February 2023 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lear v GRP Trading Enterprises Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought relief in relation to services rendered by the defendant, which involved modifying a classic vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the services provided were defective and did not meet the required standard, leading to a claim for damages. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was a consumer under the Australian Consumer Law, and if so, whether the implied guarantees under sections 60 and 61 were breached. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether interest should be awarded on the part of the damages already paid by the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed a consumer for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law, and that the defendant's services did not meet the required standard of care and skill as implied by law. Consequently, the court held that the implied guarantees under sections 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law were breached. The court further reasoned that since the plaintiff had already paid most of the contract amount, it was appropriate to award interest on the remaining part of the damages to ensure that the plaintiff was not left out of pocket for the period between payment and judgment.

Following these findings, the court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of $592,175.95, which included interest of $120,935.95. Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of service providers meeting the implied guarantees under consumer protection legislation and highlights the potential financial consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $592,175.95, including interest in the sum of $120,935.95.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding.

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.

CITATION:	Lear v GRP Trading Enterprises Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 25
PARTIES:	MICK LEAR (Plaintiff)
v
GRP TRADING ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 152 004 727) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE OZRODS TRADING UNIT TRUST (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3450/2023
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2023 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13, 14 February 2023
JUDGE:	Barlow KC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $592,175.95, including interest in the sum of $120,935.95. 2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – the plaintiff made known to the defendant the purpose for which the defendant’s services were to be acquired the product delivered as a consequence of the application of the services was not suitable for the purpose – whether the plaintiff was a consumer – whether there was an implied guarantee under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – the plaintiff engaged the defendant to modify the plaintiff’s classic vehicle – whether the defendant undertook the work with due care and skill - whether the plaintiff was a consumer – whether there was an implied guarantee under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – AWARD OF INTEREST AS DAMAGES – IN QUEENSLAND – damages were awarded to the plaintiff for breach of contract – the plaintiff had paid most of the amount under the contract – whether it is appropriate to award interest on part of the damages
LEGISLATION	Australian Consumer Law (Cth) ss 3, 18, 60, 61 Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 (Qld) s 13 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 476
CASES	Bunnings Group Ltd v Laminex Group Ltd (2006) 153 FCR 479, cited
COUNSEL:	J C Faulkner, for the plaintiff
No appearance for defendant
SOLICITORS:	HW Litigation for the plaintiff Defendant not represented by solicitors