Lemire v Motorama Automotive Pty Ltd

[2017] QCAT 189

CITATION:

Lemire v Motorama Automotive Pty Ltd [2017] QCAT 189

PARTIES:

Nathaniel Emmerson Lemire
(Applicant)

v

Motorama Automotive Pty Ltd

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO726-17

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   Application to join Ford Motor Company of Australia as a Respondent is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Procedure – application to join party – reliance on prior transfer to join manufacturer – possibility of indemnity inadequate – right of consumer to pursue supplier

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. By application filed 12 April 2017, the applicant, Mr Lemire, seeks a refund in respect of his purchase of a 2012 Ford Focus motor vehicle consequent upon the vehicle being the subject of major defects and being unsafe as defined under Australian Consumer Law.

2. On 4 May 2017, the respondent, Motorama Automotive Pty Ltd (Motorama), filed an application seeking to join Ford Motor Company of Australia as manufacturer of the vehicle as a respondent to the application, or alternatively a third-party.

3. Mr Lemire does not seek to prosecute any form of action against Ford Australia as manufacturer. The applicant is pursuing what he says are his rights pursuant to the warranty that accompany the sale of the vehicle by the original seller and supplier, Denmac Ford, an entity which has since been placed in liquidation. Denmac Ford was the original seller or supplier of the Ford Focus motor vehicle.

4. Denmac Ford passed onto, assigned or transferred to Motorama the benefits of the warranty under which the vehicle was sold in the first instance.

5. Motorama in seeking to join Ford as a respondent and/or third-party relies on the possibility of Motorama being able to recoup from or be indemnified by Ford for any loss Motorama may be liable for. That is insufficient.

6. Ford would only be joined as a respondent (and that is the only categorisation in the context of a minor civil dispute) if there was an assertion of liability devolving on Ford alone, or on both Motorama and Ford. That being so, the applicant’s case will stand or fall on its own evidence as against Motorama.