Parson v Somogvi - [2025] QCAT 354

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Parson v Somogvi [2025] QCAT 354

PARTIES:

PENNY PARSON

(applicant)

v

ARPAD SOMOGVI (ECUMAN)

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL146-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

1. The Tribunal orders that the Application for Miscellaneous Orders filed in the Tribunal on 18 July 2025 by Penny Parson is dismissed

2. The Tribunal orders that the Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute filed in the Tribunal on 10 July 2023 by Penny Parson is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – JURISDICTION – claim that mechanical services provided in breach of consumer guarantee – claim based on consumer guarantee to provide mechanical services with due care and skill – jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and decide a motor vehicle dispute

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Queensland), Schedule 2, s 2, s 8, s 60, s 61, s 62, 63

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8(b), s 13, s 48

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

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Penny Parson (‘the Applicant’) is claiming $6,436.33 from Arpad Somogvi (Ecuman) (the Respondent) in reliance upon the Australian Consumer Law and the reciprocal provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) on the basis that a mechanical service by the Respondent to the Applicant’s Subaru motor vehicle, registration 423-KNS, but now registered 901-GX8, was performed in breach of the consumer guarantees that the service be carried out with due care and skill.
The Applicant’s case is that the mechanical work performed by the Respondent in replacing the timing belt has caused major damage to the radiator as well causing a chain of other mechanical defects to the Subaru.
The Respondent denies that changing the timing belt has caused any damage to the radiator or other mechanical defects. The Respondent’s case is that the Subaru is an old car and the defects in its mechanical operation relied on by the Applicant should be expected.

Background Facts

On 19 October 2007 the Applicant purchased a 2007 Obsidian Black RS Subaru Impreza Sport Hatch motor vehicle. The purchase price was $35,000.00.
On 27 January 2017 the Applicant took the Subaru to Sunnybank Signature Service Car Care, Automotive Service and Repairs, (‘Sunnybank Signature’) of Macgregor, Brisbane to replace the power steering belt and check brake squeak. Sunnybank Signature removed and replaced the power steering belt and although they checked for the brake squeak, no squeak was noted at the time of inspection. An invoice was issued in the amount of $69.80 for the removal and replacement of the power steering belt.[1]
[1]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 27 January 2017.
On 10 May 2021 the Applicant took the Subaru motor vehicle to the Respondent mechanical business for repair of the timing belt. The vehicle had travelled 125,000 km. The Respondent had quoted $750 for repairs to the vehicle.
The Applicant says that the Respondent worked on the Subaru from May 2021 to April 2022. During that period the car was returned to the Applicant at various intervals and she would later return it to the Respondent for further mechanical work. For example, the car was with the Respondent on 10 January 2022 when the pump being installed was damaged and by 15 February 2022 another pump was obtained which seemed to work satisfactorily. The Applicant says that she:
Drop car off Monday, 21 February 2022 because the power steering wheel fluid spilling out of the car and steering wheel was “bobbing” out of control on turns.
Dropped it off with Arpi. Picked it up on 22 February 2022. It seemed to run ok and Wednesday took a drive to Indooroopilly seem to be ‘ok’. Milage showed 131,000 kms. During this time the same issues continued.
During this time there were frequent and regular conversations between the Applicant and the Respondent recorded in a “Whatsapp” script. By 21 March 2022 the Applicant was telling the Respondent that:
And there is still a shudder on the steering wheel when turning either way, on bumps, or going over rough surfaces.
The Applicant in those recorded conversations says that the Respondent was ignoring her messages and was reluctant to reply. Following further conversation, on 2 April 2022 the Applicant was telling the Respondent that:
Just to remind you again that the shudder on the steering wheel has gone back to the way it was and worsened.
This has happened before the work was done is poor workmanship on the power steering it and you have supplied a faulty pump without a warranty.
You keep on denying responsibility then who is responsible
The Applicant says that while the timing belt was changed when the vehicle had travelled 125,000 kms, other mechanical problems arose by the time the vehicle had travelled 132,000 kms.
On 28 February 2022 after getting the car back from the Respondent the Applicant was at a Shell Service Station when she noticed a leak under the car but was not sure if the leak had come from her Subaru. She then drove the car but not very long afterwards noticed a red light on the temperature gauge become illuminated. She had a conversation with the Respondent who gave her advice that coolant had leaked from the radiator and she had a burst hose. He told her to wait until the radiator was cool and then fill it up with water.
Apparently on a subsequent date (not referred to in the evidence) the Subaru broke down when the radiator failed. The Applicant had previously taken the Subaru to Sunnybank Signature to supply and install a new radiator which was still under warranty when the replacement radiator failed. The Applicant returned the Subaru to Sunnybank Signature to replace this defective radiator under the terms of the warranty and also replaced a power steering belt that had ripped which had caused a power steering failure. The Applicant says:
and only when removing it from the Subaru did it revealed the damage and that something seriously went wrong with the repairs of the Subaru.
The Applicant says that the owner (Danny) from Sunnybank Signature told her that:
There was no “burst pipe” as Arpi said but a crack in the radiator and there were bent pipes. He also said the reason the power steering failed was because the power steering belt ripped which he replaced… he also asked me if the crack was caused when repair work by Ecuman (the Respondent) changing the timing belt (as the radiator was close to the timing belt) and if the crack was caused in there?
The Applicant says she informed the Respondent about this damage and the Respondent denied that any of this damage was caused by him, or his employees, repairing the timing belt to the Subaru. The Applicant says that the Respondent refused to do any more repair work on the vehicle
On 21 November 2022 the Applicant took the Subaru to Sunnybank Signature stating that the “power steering jerky and noisy”. The Subaru odometer reading was 133,801 kms. On mechanical inspection it was found that:
(a)the power steering pump was weeping causing oil to come into the system;
(b)the wrong oil was used causing the power steering hoses to swell internally;
(c)the wrong p/s pump fitted to vehicle causing damage to the p/s pump bracket, causing the bracket to be bent slightly.
Sunnybank Signature then ordered the correct pump from Subaru and replaced the power pump at a cost of $3,252.25. Eagers Automotive sent an invoice dated 19 October 2022 to Sunnybank Signature for a “Pump Assy”. The Applicant has made handwritten comments on that invoice stating that Eagers would not tell her if the pump was genuine.
The Applicant says that she incurred a total of $6,439.33 in repairs to the Subaru by which time the vehicle had travelled 140,000 km.
On 9 May 2022 the Applicant lodged a complaint with the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) regarding the Respondent’s mechanical services to her vehicle. The OFT advised the Applicant on 17 June 2022:
I understand that you are not happy with the outcome of the complaint however I am unable to assist you further.
The Applicant was advised to seek legal advice or go through QCAT.
On 10 March 2023 the Applicant took the Subaru to Zupps-Mt Gravatt which was a Subaru Dealership. The odometer of the Subaru recorded that it had travelled 138,427 kms. Zupp’s invoice said that the reason for the vehicle coming to that Dealership was:[2]
customer has had ongoing issues with vehicle, needs complete inspection/diagnosis – customer could not explain to me her issue – $167.50 diag fee
[2]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 10 March 2023.
The Dealership inspected the vehicle and reported:
Inspected power system components operation and all okay. Confirmed shudder when doing tight turns, coming from Auto Transmission centre Differential clutch pack. Recommended to carry out double flush of Transmission as first measure and recheck system operation.
On 4 April 2023 the Dealership serviced the vehicle and the odometer recorded that the Subaru had travelled 139,418 kms. The invoice dated 4 April 2023 from the Dealership recorded the mechanical services provided to the vehicle and reported:[3]
Flushed transmission and Road tested. Carried second transmission flush. Road tested multiple times and re-checked all okay at time of inspection. Customer to monitor if issue comes back might need centre differential assembly.
[3]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 4 April 2023.
The Applicant has provided numerous colour photographs of the Subaru with its previous registration number including photographs of engine components and an odometer reading of 133,427 kms.
On 10 July 2023 the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute which claims that after the Respondent’s mechanical service of 12 May 2025 were not in accordance with the consumer guarantee as the car continued to breakdown including repair after the radiator, further defects with oil leaks and pump etc and that “currently the vehicle on breaking still has shudder felt on the steering wheel at times which could still be the power steering” .

The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters it is empowered to deal with under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) or an enabling Act.[4]
[4]QCAT Act s 9.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings by reason of section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘Fair Trading Act’). The Fair Trading Act is the “enabling Act” for these proceedings
The Tribunal will proceed to consider the Applicant’s claim under this provision relating to the Australian Consumer Law.

Mechanical Defects Allegedly Caused by the Respondent

The Applicant’s claim for $6,439.33 comprises the original cost for the timing belt replacement and additional defects which the Applicant says was caused by the Respondent’s failure to comply with the consumer guarantees. Those costs are calculated as follows:
(a)Respondent’s costs for changing the timing belt   $750.00
(b)Radiator damage repaired by Sunnybank Signature   $200.00
(c)Car Registration 13 October 2023 when car was off the road               $385.60
(d)Power steering belt ripped and replaced   $69.80
(e)Remove and replace power steering belt   $125.26
(f)Air conditioning service and repairs (new reconditioned pump)           $3,252.25
(g)Repairs by other mechanic   $110.00
(h)Inspection by Subaru Dealership   $154.00
(i)Transmission flush by Subaru dealership   $443.97
(j)Other Repairs   $60.00
(k)Car registration April to October 2022 (Subaru with respondent)         $377.65
(l)Car registration April to October 2022 (Subaru kept by Danny)           $395.90
(m)Photocopies   $114.90
(n)Total cost   $6,439.33

The Applicant’s Claim under the Provisions of ACL

The first issue is whether or not the Applicant is a “consumer” for the purposes of the ACL. Section 3(3) of the ACL provides that a person is taken to have acquired particular services as a consumer if, and only if:
(a)the amount paid or payable for the services, as worked out under subsections (4) to (9), did not exceed:
(i) $40,000.00; or
(ii) if a greater amount is prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) – that greater amount; or
(b)the services were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption.
In these proceedings the amount paid by the applicant did not exceed $40,000.00. Also, the services required by the Applicant relating to servicing and repair of the Subaru were for personal purposes. Accordingly, the Applicant pursuant to these provisions can be taken to have acquired the mechanical services referred to in these proceedings as a consumer for the purposes of the ACL.
The ACL provides a number of guarantees relating to the supply of services and in particular provides as follows:[5]
If a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.
[5]ACL s 60.
The Applicant in these proceedings relies upon this guarantee in respect of the servicing of the Subaru by the Respondent. The other guarantees provided by the ACL are not relevant to these proceedings.[6]
[6]Ibid ss 61–63.
The concept of “trade or commerce” is defined to mean:[7]
(a)trade or commerce within Australia; or
(b)trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia;
and includes any business or professional activity (whether or not carried on for profit).
[7]Ibid s 2 (definition of “trade or commerce”).
In these proceedings the evidence relating to the activities of the Respondent in the provision of mechanical services and repairs demonstrates of that he carried on a business (whether or not carried on for profit). Accordingly, the mechanical services and repairs provided by the Respondent to the Applicant were provided in the course of trade or commerce within Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied, and makes the finding, that the Applicant is a consumer and that for the purposes of these proceedings the guarantee that the services provided by the Respondent will be rendered with due care and skill.
The next issue is whether or not the services provided by the Respondent to the Applicant in repairing the timing belt to the Subaru were provided with due care and skill.
As has already been referred to, there was no Motor Vehicle Assessors Report provided by the parties or either of them.
The Applicant has provided an Affidavit from Daniel Bhullar, the principle of Sunnybank Signature.[8] His evidence confirms that the vehicle:
(a)arrived with power steering problems with leaks and pump noise;
(b)when removing the power steering pump he found oil lines to the pump were not routed the correct way. Those oil lines could not be fixed and routed the correct way as they would not fit onto the pump due to the pump being the wrong pump;
(c)it was found that his suppliers also had given them the wrong pump and the correct pump from Subaru was ordered;
(d)it was found that the brackets that hold the pump were bent and could not fit the new pump and pump bracket was replaced.
[8]Affidavit filed on 27 July 2023.
Unfortunately, the Affidavit does not provide a date when the power steering pump was replaced. There is evidence that Sunnybank Signature worked on the power steering pump as early as 27 January 2017. At that time it removed and replaced the power steering belt.[9] This was approximately four years before the Respondent made repairs to the timing belt of the Subaru in May 2021. There is evidence before the Tribunal that on 21 November 2022 Sunnybank Signature carried out mechanical repairs and replaced the power steering system in the Subaru.[10] The invoice for those repairs issued by Sunnybank Signature stated:
Power steering jerky and noisy. Found power steering pump weeping causing air into system. Also found wrong oil used in power steering system causing power steering hoses to swell internally. Also found wrong p/s pump fitted to the vehicle, due to wrong pump fitted causing damage to p/s pump bracket making bracket to be bent slightly
[9]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 27 January 2017.
[10]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 21 November 2022.
At the time Sunnybank Signature performed these mechanical services and repairs the Subaru Odometer recorded the vehicle and travelled 133,801 km.
The Affidavit and the other evidence provided by the Invoice of 21 November 2022 does not provide the Tribunal with any evidence that the work by the Respondent in repairing the timing belt in May 2021 was in anyway without due care and skill. Nor does this Affidavit and invoice provide any evidence that any other work performed by the Respondent in that period from May 2021 to 2022 was in anyway provided without due care and skill. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this evidence from Sunnybank Signature establishes that the services provided by the Respondent were performed in a way without due care and skill.
The Applicant has provided many statements and other documents relating to the servicing and repair of the Subaru.[11] That evidence contains a number of statements by the Applicant concerning the Respondent’s supply of mechanical services to the Subaru. The Tribunal refers to a number of those statements. In the Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute the Applicant stated:[12]
The repair work was only for the timing belt but the workmanship was not so. Ecuman the first repairer has now dismissed the mechanic that started the work on the Subaru and refuses to take responsibility for the above.
[11]This evidence is particularly set out in the Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023.
[12]See Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute filed 10 July 2023 at Part G paragraph 2.
In a Statement by the Applicant dated 4 September 2023 the Applicant stated:[13]
It still confuses me why the replacement of the timing belt had anything to do with the radiator, the power steering belt, the pump, drive belts, leakage of oil, tyres and why the engine was sprayed to cool the heat from under the bonnet. There may have been other things but I really do not know. It was through the continued repairs that escalated to finding the reason the radiator had to be replaced claiming another one from the existing warranty through Sunnybank Signature and for this I have not claimed a refund from Ecuman. The radiator broke and had to be replaced.
[13]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 with a statement dated 4 September 2023.
In a further Statement to Fair Work Australia (the Tribunal assumes the Applicant meant to refer the Office of Fair Trading) dated 9 May 2022 the Applicant stated:
The truth with what has gone wrong with my vehicle is shocking “I think” which I find hard to explain because I do not really know what Ecuman has done to my car. I have always been suspicious but the truth of what has happened only Ecuman knows and what was discovered when the radiator was changed.
In a statement to the Service Department of Zupps-Mt Gravatt (the Zupps Dealership) dated 10 March 2023 the Applicant stated:
Two years ago plus I book my vehicle for a timing belt replacement at 125k but for some unknown mis-demeaner the repair went on from that to the power steering belt and pump to loss of oil failures.
This went back and forth to the mechanic for almost a year when the pump was replaced 5 times (and still failed) only to be told there was never a new pump but reconditioned parts put together to make up a pump but whatever was done it failed all the time.

The evidence provided by Zupps-Mt Gravatt does not support the Applicant’s case against the Respondent. On 10 March 2023 the Applicant had ongoing issues with the vehicle and needed to complete inspection which showed that:[14]
Inspected power system components operation and all okay. Confirmed shudder when doing tight turns, coming from Auto Transmission centre Differential clutch pack. Recommend to carry out double flush of Transmission as first measure and recheck system operation
[14]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 10 March 2023.
On 4 April 2023 Zupps-Mt Gravatt reported the following with respect to the Subaru:[15]
Flushed transmission and road tested. Carried second transmission flush. Road tested multiple times and re-checked all okay at time of inspection. Customer to monitor if issue come back, might need centre differential assembly.
[15]See Applicant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 27 July 2023 for the Invoice issued on 4 April 2023.
The evidence provided by Zupps-Mt Gravatt demonstrates that following a complete inspection of the Subaru the power steering components operate satisfactorily but there was a shudder in the vehicle on performing tight turns which could be the result of the Auto Transmission centre Differential clutch pack. This appeared to be remedied by the Transmission flush although the Applicant was asked to monitor if the issue came back. In that case it might need a centre differential assembly. These existing issues with the Subaru have no connection, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, with the mechanical services provided by the Respondent in May 2021 through to 2022.
The Applicant bears the onus of proof of establishing that the mechanical services provided by the Respondent in May 2021 were provided without due care and skill. The Tribunal is not satisfied based upon the evidence of Sunnybank Signature, Daniel Bhullar or Zupps-Mt Gravatt that the mechanical services provided by the Respondent as alleged in these proceedings was provided without due care and skill. The Applicant’s own evidence (referred to above) provides no basis on which the Tribunal could make a finding against the Respondent that he failed to comply the guarantee in the ACL as to due care and skill. The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s claim that the respondent performed the mechanical services from June 2021 in breach of the guarantee as to due care and skill. The Applicant has failed to substantiate that, at any material time, the Respondent performed the mechanical services referred to in these proceedings without due care and skill. The Tribunal dismisses the Applicant’s claims and will make orders accordingly.

Application for Miscellaneous Matters filed 18 July 2025

On 18 July 2025 The Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application for Miscellaneous Matters. The filing of this Application was after the Applicant had closed her case in the proceedings heard in the Tribunal on 7 November 2024.
The Tribunal has considered that Application and pursuant to s 47 of the QCAT Act dismisses the Application on the basis that it is misconceived The Tribunal will make the appropriate order in respect of that Application.

Human Rights Act

Neither party made submissions whether the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) applies to these proceedings.
The Tribunal must consider the human rights of the Applicant and the Respondent under the HR Act in reaching its decision in these proceedings.
The Tribunal is an entity which acts in an administrative capacity and is bound to comply with the HR Act in exercising its jurisdiction in relation to the Application filed by the Applicant.
In considering the provisions of the ACL and the Fair Trading Act, the Tribunal must, to the extent possible that is consistent with the purposes of the HR Act, interpret that legislation in a way that is compatible with the human rights of the parties.
The human rights of the Applicant and the Respondent include:
(a)recognition and equality before the law;
(b)property rights;
(c)fair hearing.
These human rights have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of its exercise of its jurisdiction in these proceedings.
The Tribunal has made findings about the Applicant’s Application and the Respondent’s response to that Application. These findings can possibly be a limitation on the human rights of the Applicant and the Respondent under the HR Act. This limits their entitlements by imposing, in effect, a liability and/or limits the parties’ equal treatment with other applicants making Application to the Tribunal.
However, any such limitation on the parties’ human rights arises from the provisions of the ACL, Fair Trading Act and the QCAT Act. While the Tribunal is required to make a decision that is compatible with human rights and is to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision, the Tribunal can make such a decision if the Tribunal could not reasonably have acted differently or made a different decision because of a statutory provision.
The ACL and the Fair Trading Act create a legislative scheme in relation to the supply of services within Australia in accordance with the consumer guarantees. It has the purpose of protecting the community by providing rules about the provision of services with new care and skill. The ACL and the Fair Trading Act are to facilitate consumer protection relating to the supplier of services in Australia.
This decision under the ACL and the Fair Trading Act is made in accordance with statutory provisions and is not an arbitrary decision. It is a decision based upon the legislative scheme and is reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act in the light of the purposes of the consumer legislation. The decision in these proceedings is made in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the legislation and has been interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights as required by s 48 of the HR Act. In these circumstances any limitation on the human rights of the Applicant and or the Respondent is reasonable and is justified in terms of section 8(b) of the HR Act.

Orders

The Tribunal orders that the Application for Miscellaneous Orders filed in the Tribunal on 18 July 2025 by Penny Parson is dismissed
The Tribunal orders that the Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute filed in the Tribunal on 10 July 2023 by Penny Parson is dismissed.