PPAJP Pty Ltd v Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 324

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:
PPAJP PTY LTD V OLDMAC MAZDA PTY LTD [2023] QCAT 324

PARTIES:

PPAJPPTYLTD

(Applicant)

v

OLDMAC MAZDA PTY LTD T/AS SPRINGWOOD MAZDA

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL141-22

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2023

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Poteri

ORDERS:

PPAJP Pty Ltd must deliver the Mazda 3 registration 618CNZ (together with all relevant documentation) to Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd T/A Springwood Mazda within 7 days of the date of this order.

Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd T/A Springwood Mazda must pay the sum of $37,450 into the nominated bank account of PPAJP Pty Ltd on delivery of Mazda registration 618CNZ to Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd T/A Springwood Mazda.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where the Applicant contended that water was entering its newly purchased motor vehicle from an unknown source and pooling in the driver’s and back passenger seat’s footwells – where the Respondent caveated its further investigation of the alleged defect – whether the fact of a leak should be accepted – whether the Respondent’s caveat on further investigation was reasonable – whether the motor vehicle was of acceptable quality when supplied – whether failure of the consumer guarantee was major

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2, s 54, s 259, s 260, s 263

Grehan v WestPoint Autos Qld Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 65, cited

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter came before me on 8 June 2023 and the parties appeared in person. The Applicant company, PPAJP Pty Ltd (PPAJP) was represented by Anthony Parry (Parry) who is the owner director of PPAJP. The Respondent, Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd (Oldmac), was represented by Mr. C Oldham (Oldham), the managing director, and Mr. Ray Stewart (Stewart), the service manager, of Oldmac. Oldham advised the Tribunal that his expertise of the workings of motor vehicles was limited but Stewart was available to answer any technical questions.
The proceedings relate to PPAJP purchasing a new Mazda 3 registration 618CNZ (Mazda) for $37,083.00 on 6 August 2021. The purchase contract is attached to the application filed in the Tribunal by PPAJP on 11 July 2022. There is no notation in the odometer section in the purchase contract. Both parties agree that the Mazda was new when the vehicle was delivered to PPAJP in August 2021.
Parry gave evidence that PPAJP has had the Mazda for some 2 years and the Mazda has travelled approximately 26,000 kilometers. Parry stated that he had used the Mazda for ordinary everyday road use.
Parry complains that water is entering the Mazda from an unknown source and pools in the driver's and back seat passenger's footwells. There are photographs of the water and its effects attached to PPAJP's application filed in the Tribunal on 11 July…

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 PPAJP Pty Ltd v Oldmac Mazda 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: [2023] QCAT 324
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) involved a dispute between PPAJP Pty Ltd (PPAJP), the applicant, and Oldmac Mazda Pty Ltd T/A Springwood Mazda (Oldmac), the respondent. PPAJP had purchased a new Mazda 3 registration 618CNZ (Mazda) from Oldmac for $37,083.00 on 6 August 2021. The applicant alleged that water was entering the vehicle from an unknown source, pooling in the footwells, and causing damage and an unpleasant mouldy odour. Oldmac had conducted tests but could not replicate the issue, suggesting that no defect existed. The applicant sought a full refund of the purchase price and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether water was entering the vehicle, whether Oldmac had reasonably investigated the issue, whether the vehicle was of acceptable quality, and whether the failure to comply with the guarantee was a major failure. The court examined the relevant provisions of the ACL, particularly sections 54, 259, 260, and 263, which outline guarantees as to acceptable quality, actions against suppliers of goods, when a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure, and the consequences of rejecting goods, respectively.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PPAJP's director, Anthony Parry, that water was entering the Mazda and found that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality as it was not free from defects and/or durable. The Tribunal found it unreasonable for Oldmac to caveat their further investigations, especially considering the factory warranty on the Mazda. Oldmac had not undertaken a full strip down of the interior as recommended by an independent assessor, which could have demonstrated whether a defect existed. The Tribunal found that Oldmac had breached their obligations under the ACL, and a full refund should be paid to PPAJP. The Tribunal also found that the failure to comply with the guarantee was a major failure as a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the Mazda if they were aware of the defect. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered Oldmac to refund the full purchase price of $37,083 and the filing fee of $367 to PPAJP, and PPAJP must return the Mazda to Oldmac.

Orders