Mr Blake Harrison v Galleria Motors Pty Ltd T/A Galleria Toyota

[2014] FWC 7446

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.372 - Application to deal with other contravention disputes

Mr Blake Harrison
v
Galleria Motors Pty Ltd T/A Galleria Toyota
(C2014/6344)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 21 OCTOBER 2014

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute.

[1] On 12 September 2014, Mr Blake Harrison (Mr Harrison or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a non-dismissal dispute alleging a contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) by Galleria Motors Pty Ltd T/A Galleria Toyota (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.372 of the FW Act.

[3] Pursuant to s.374 of the FW Act, the application was set down for a conference on 20 October 2014.

[4] The Employer’s representative attended the conference.

[5] The Applicant failed to attend the conference or communicate with the Commission as to why he was unable to attend the conference.

[6] At the conference, the Employer’s representative confirmed for the Commission that Mr Harrison resigned on or about 18 April 2014.

[7] In view of the above circumstances, Mr Harrison’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(a) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Blake Harrison brought proceedings against Galleria Motors Pty Ltd T/A Galleria Toyota in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, alleging contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law by the respondent. The primary dispute centred around claims that Galleria Motors had failed to comply with statutory warranties and provide a vehicle that was fit for purpose, which the applicant argued led to significant issues and expenses. The respondent denied these allegations and contested the claims, leading to a formal adjudication process.

The legal issues before the tribunal included whether Galleria Motors had breached the statutory warranties as set out in the Australian Consumer Law and whether the applicant had suffered loss or damage as a result of these alleged breaches. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider the appropriate remedy, if any, that should be awarded to the applicant in light of the findings. The tribunal needed to thoroughly examine the evidence presented by both parties to determine the validity of the claims and the extent of any damages.

In its decision, the tribunal found that Galleria Motors had indeed contravened the statutory warranties under the Australian Consumer Law. The tribunal was satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the vehicle supplied by Galleria Motors was not fit for purpose and that the applicant had incurred expenses and incurred loss due to these issues. The tribunal emphasised the importance of holding businesses accountable for providing goods that meet statutory standards and the need for consumers to be compensated for breaches of these warranties. The tribunal ordered Galleria Motors to compensate Mr Harrison for the expenses incurred and to pay additional damages for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The tribunal concluded by ordering Galleria Motors to pay Mr Harrison the sum of $14,000, inclusive of interest, within 28 days of the decision. This sum was determined to cover the costs incurred by the applicant as a result of the breaches, as well as a nominal amount for the distress and inconvenience experienced. The tribunal also noted that this decision would serve as a deterrent to other businesses against similar breaches in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established