Marshall v Bunting - [2025] QCAT 395

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
MARSHALL V BUNTING [2025] QCAT 395

PARTIES:

DAVID MARSHALL

(applicant)

V

RONALD VICTOR BUNTING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q3442-25

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2025

HEARD ON:

10 October 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1. The Respondent’s name is corrected to Ronald Victor Bunting.

2. The Respondent must pay the Applicant the sum of $25,379.50 by 31 October 2025.

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 engine work undertaken with due care and skill – whether services fit for purpose – whether services supplied within a reasonable time – claim for refund

Cox v J & M Phelan trading as Carrara Carmart [2020] QCAT 190

EH March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

European Bank Ltd v Evans of Robb Evans and Associates (2010) 240 CLR 432

Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

Hardchrome Engineering Pty Ltd v Kambrook Distributing Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 359

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 60, s 61, s 62, s 267, s 268, sch 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 50
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) s 11, s 12, s 102, sch 3

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented.

Respondent:

Self-represented.

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

Mr Marshall engaged Mr Bunting, trading as ‘Benzkraft’ to undertake an engine swap, some mechanical work, and rust repairs to his 1981 Mercedes-Benz 300TD BDW-36D wagon (the vehicle). The vehicle had been purchased by Mr Marshall in 2008 and driven by him until 2022, when the engine overheated and Mr Marshall determined that an engine replacement was needed.
Between September 2022 and September 2024, Mr Bunting worked on the vehicle according to a ‘scope of works’ set out in a list[1] or spreadsheet[2] created and exchanged in September 2022. The parties are in dispute as to who terminated the contract, but in any event, by the time Mr Marshall arranged for the vehicle to be collected from Mr Bunting in September 2024, Mr Marshall had paid Mr Bunting $21,602.00 for labour and $9,398.00 for parts for the vehicle, which remained in an unfinished state when it was collected.
[1]As Mr Bunting referred to it.
[2]As Mr Marshall referred to it.
By an application filed 12 March 2025, Mr Marshall seeks a refund of money paid to Mr Bunting, to the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdictional limit of $25,000.00 plus costs limited to the filing fee paid on the application of $379.50, for a total claim of $25,379.50.
Mr Bunting filed a counter-application on 14 April 2025, to which he attached several invoices he says remain unpaid by Mr Marshall. In the hearing he clarified that the counter-application was filed by way of response to…

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.

Continue reading Marshall v Bunting

Details

AGLC: Marshall v Bunting [2025] QCAT 395
Case: [2025] QCAT 395
Decision Date: 13 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marshall initiated legal proceedings against Bunting, alleging that Bunting had failed to perform engine work on Marshall's vehicle with the required level of care and skill. Additionally, Marshall claimed that the services provided were not fit for purpose and were not completed within a reasonable time. Marshall sought a refund of the amount paid for the services. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Bunting had fulfilled his obligations by performing the engine work with due care and skill, whether the services met the required standards of fitness for purpose, and if the services were provided within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the court had to determine if Marshall was entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the services.

In its judgment, the court found that Bunting had not performed the engine work with the requisite level of care and skill. The services provided were not fit for purpose, and they were not completed within a reasonable time. Consequently, the court ruled that Marshall was entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the services. The court ordered that Bunting must compensate Marshall the sum of $25,379.50 by 31 October 2025. Additionally, the court corrected the respondent's name to Ronald Victor Bunting.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent’s name is corrected to Ronald Victor Bunting.

2. The Respondent must pay the Applicant the sum of $25,379.50 by 31 October 2025.

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.