Mitchell v Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 310

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Mitchell v Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 310

PARTIES:

STEPHEN JOHN MITCHELL

(applicant)

v

NORRIS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL102-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member D Brown

ORDERS:

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, being by 2 September 2025, Norris Enterprises Group Pty Ltd are to service the vehicle, replace the centre arm rest, ensure the vehicle has a full tank of petrol and advise Mr Stephen Mitchell that the vehicle is ready for collection.

2. Mr Stephen Mitchell is to collect the vehicle from Norris Enterprises Group Pty Ltd within 21 days of being advised the vehicle is ready for collection.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – whether motor vehicle of acceptable quality – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – whether goods rejected during the rejection period – whether consumer entitled to refund

Australian Consumer Law (Queensland), s 3, s 54, s 259, s 260

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 10, s 100, s 102

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (2020) FCA 1672
Baas v JB Hi Fi Group Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 10
Campbell v Caravan & RV Central Pty Ltd t/as Avan New South Wales & FCA Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 90
Cary Boyd v Agrison Pty Ltd [2014] VMC 23
Holt-Lea v O’Connor & Anor [2022] QCAT 363
Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 1520
Nuth v Soel Products Australia Pty Ltd trading as Caravan RV CQ [2020] QCAT 369
Peter Bennett Cars v Lyree-Jho Vodanovich [2020] QCATA 88

Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self represented

Respondent:

P Casey (Dealer Principal) and K Foura (Fixed Operation Manager)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 15 September 2022 the applicant, Mr Stephen John Mitchell (‘Mr Mitchell’) purchased a 2022 LDV T60 Max Ute from the respondent Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd, trading as Brendale LDV (‘Norris Enterprises’) for $43,844. Mr Mitchell asserts that the motor vehicle was not of acceptable quality as required under section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and seeks to reject and return the motor and obtain a full refund for the purchase price.
On 8 May 2023 Mr Mitchell filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the tribunal, seeking a refund of the purchase price of the vehicle plus damages of $3,028 from Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd. Mr Mitchell took out a consumer loan to fund the purchase of the motor vehicle. The damages sought relate to a $990 introducer origination fee, $1,038 fees and charges on the loan and $1,000 termination…

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 Mitchell v Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 310
Case: [2025] QCAT 310
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell v Norris Enterprises Pty Ltd involved a dispute between Mr Mitchell and Norris Enterprises regarding the quality of a motor vehicle he purchased. The case was heard in the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. The central issue was whether the vehicle met the acceptable quality standard as guaranteed by consumer protection laws, and if the failure to meet this standard constituted a major failure. Additionally, the court had to determine if the consumer had rejected the vehicle within the permissible period and if he was entitled to a refund.

The court examined the evidence regarding the vehicle's condition and whether it complied with the acceptable quality standards. It considered whether the defects identified by Mr Mitchell were significant enough to classify as a major failure. Furthermore, the court assessed the timeline of events to ascertain if the rejection of the vehicle occurred within the legally prescribed period and if the consumer was entitled to a refund under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court concluded that the vehicle did not meet the acceptable quality standards and that the defects amounted to a major failure. It found that Mr Mitchell had rejected the vehicle within the prescribed period, thus entitling him to a refund. The court ordered Norris Enterprises to service and repair the vehicle, replace the centre armrest, and ensure it had a full tank of petrol. Mr Mitchell was instructed to collect the vehicle within 21 days of being notified that it was ready for collection.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, being by 2 September 2025, Norris Enterprises Group Pty Ltd are to service the vehicle, replace the centre arm rest, ensure the vehicle has a full tank of petrol and advise Mr Stephen Mitchell that the vehicle is ready for collection.

2. Mr Stephen Mitchell is to collect the vehicle from Norris Enterprises Group Pty Ltd within 21 days of being advised the vehicle is ready for collection.

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.