Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Begovic

The case of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Begovic involved the purchaser of a new Mitsubishi Triton 4WD, who alleged that the vehicle's fuel consumption was far higher than the amount indicated by the Fuel Consumption Label attached to the vehicle's windscreen. The purchaser sought redress under the Australian Consumer Law, specifically section 18, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and sections 54 and 56, which relate to the sale by description and the implied consumer guarantees. The matter was heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), and Mitsubishi Motors subsequently sought to appeal VCAT's decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Fuel Consumption Label on the vehicle was misleading or deceptive to a reasonable consumer, and whether this constituted a breach of the consumer guarantees or sale by description provisions. The court needed to determine whether the label accurately conveyed the fuel consumption to the consumer and whether Mitsubishi Motors had breached the Australian Consumer Law. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedies available under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the Fuel Consumption Label was not misleading or deceptive to a reasonable consumer. The court determined that the label accurately reflected the fuel consumption as required by law and that the purchaser's actual fuel consumption did not align with the manufacturer's guidelines, which were based on laboratory tests under controlled conditions. The court held that the purchaser's experience did not constitute a breach of consumer guarantees or sale by description provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of VCAT was upheld.