Memorey v DAS Wholesale Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 311

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Memorey v DAS Wholesale Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 311

PARTIES:

CHELSEA MEMOREY

(applicant)

v

DAS WHOLESALE PTY LTD

(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL247-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2025

HEARING DATES:

11 April 2025 and 18 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member George

ORDERS:

1.     The application pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) is allowed.

2.     The respondent must pay to the applicant the sum of $414.00 within 14 days.

3.     The application is otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

USED MOTOR VEHICLES – GUARANTEE OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY – where defects in motor vehicle detected shortly after sale – where defects rendered motor vehicle unroadworthy – whether failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality – where consumer obtained quote for repairs – where motor dealer arranged for repairs – where consumer refused to collect motor vehicle after dealer’s repairs – where motor vehicle repossessed by financier and sold – whether loan balance owed to financier is loss and damage suffered because of the failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality

Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) sections 2, 3, 54, 259

Fair Trading Act 1984 (Qld) sections 50, 50A

Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) schedule 1, sections 2, 3B, 4, 9, 12, 13

Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 4) Pty Ltd & Ors v Flogineering Pty Ltd (2023) 412 ALR 347

Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 4) Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1219

I and L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109

Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] 196 FCR 145

Wyzenbeek & Ors v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors (2019) 272 FCR 373

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr Ronald Memorey

Respondent:

Mr Desmond Sharkey

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This is an application by Ms Chelsea Memorey (Ms Memorey) against a motor dealer, DAS Wholesale Pty Ltd trading as “Logan’s Cheapest Cars” (DAS).
The dispute concerns a used Honda Civic motor vehicle (Honda) that Ms Memorey bought from DAS for $10,000 by a contract dated 7 March 2023. At that time, the Honda’s odometer reading was 248,905km.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1.
The application initially sought relief only pursuant to the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld). At the outset of the hearing, leave was given, with ex tempore reasons, to Ms Memorey to amend her application to apply for relief pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (FTA) and particularly, the guarantee that goods will be of acceptable quality.
Ms Memorey has previously been granted leave to be represented by her father, Mr Ronald Memorey (Mr Memorey), at the hearing of her application. Mr Desmond Sharkey (Mr Sharkey) represented DAS in his role as its director.
Chelsea Memorey
Ms Memorey gave evidence to the effect that there were problems with the Honda…

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 Memorey v DAS Wholesale 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: [2025] QCAT 311
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Memorey v DAS Wholesale Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Ms Memorey, sought compensation from DAS Wholesale Pty Ltd, the defendant, for the sale of a defective motor vehicle that did not meet the acceptable quality guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Ms Memorey purchased a Honda vehicle from DAS, which had a significant mileage at the time of sale. Shortly after the purchase, defects in the vehicle were discovered, rendering it unroadworthy. Ms Memorey pursued a claim under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) for breach of the statutory warranty and under the ACL for breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality.

The court had to determine whether the defects in the vehicle constituted a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality under the ACL and whether the statutory warranty under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) applied to Ms Memorey's claim. The court also had to assess if the notice of defects provided by Ms Memorey was within the required timeframe and if the defects could be reasonably attributed to the seller. The court considered the evidence of the repairs performed, the RACQ report, and the timeline of events, including the notice of defects and the warranty period.

The court found that the statutory warranty under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) did not apply because the notice of defects was provided outside the warranty period. Additionally, the evidence did not support that DAS failed to repair the defects to the extent that the vehicle could not perform its intended functions. However, the court concluded that the rear brake pads issue identified in the RACQ report constituted a breach of the acceptable quality guarantee under the ACL. Consequently, the court ordered DAS to pay Ms Memorey $414, the amount of the claim under the ACL, and dismissed the rest of the application.

The court's final orders were that the claim under the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) was allowed, and DAS must pay Ms Memorey $414 within 14 days. The rest of the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) is allowed.

2. The respondent must pay to the applicant the sum of $414.00 within 14 days.

3. The application is otherwise 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

As to the claim under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), its statutory warranty did not apply. The Honda was a class B warranted vehicle as its odometer reading on the day of its sale was 248,905km. Ms Memorey took possession of the car on 7 March 2023. The warranty period ended one month from that date, being Tuesday, 4 April 2023. On the evidence, the earliest time that Ms Memorey gave written notice of the defects was when OFT sent DAS an email on 4 August 2023. The RACQ report was not provided to DAS until 14 September 2023. Hence, DAS was not given a defect notice before the end of the warranty period. Even if that were not so, the evidence would not establish that DAS failed to repair the defects in the car so that the defective parts cannot be reasonably relied on to perform their intended functions. The evidence of the repairs performed by JTP Mechanical balanced against the RACQ report supports a contrary finding.[25] I dismiss the application to the extent it seeks relief under that Act.[25] Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), schedule 1, sections 2(b), 3B, 4(2), 9, 12, 13; For the reasons discussed above, the issue identified in the RACQ report concerning the rear brake pads would not be a defect covered by the warranty because they had not deteriorated to an extent where they could not reasonably be relied on to perform their intended function at the time of sale.Conclusion It is appropriate to order that DAS pay Ms Memorey the sum of $414 under section 259(4) of the ACL, and to otherwise dismiss the application to the extent it seeks relief under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld). I make the following orders:1.The application to the extent of the claim made pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) is allowed. 2.The respondent must pay to the applicant the sum of $414.00 within 14 days.3.The application is otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.