Ryan James Poolman v Ibuytrader Pty Ltd

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ryan James Poolman v Ibuytrader Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 246
Hearing dates:	15 October 2014
Decision date:	23 December 2014
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	G J Sarginson, General Member
Decision:	The respondent, Ibuytrader Pty Ltd is to pay the applicant Ryan James Poolman the sum of $12,032.77 immediately
Catchwords:	Motor Vehicles Consumer Claims Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Acceptable quality Damages
Legislation Cited:	Motor Dealers Act 1974 Fair Trading Act 1987 Consumer Claims Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Australian Consumer Law 2010
Cases Cited:	Burton v Chad One Pty Limited [2013] NSWDC 301 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 Aerial Advertising Co v Batchelors Peas Ltd (Manchester) [1938] 2 All ER 788 TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 Prestige Auto Centre Pty Ltd v Apurva Mishra [2014] NSWCATAP 81
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ryan James Poolman (applicant) Ibuytrader Pty Ltd (respondent)
Representation:	Mr Daniel Poolman for the applicant Mr Buddy Wakim for the respondent
File Number(s):	MV 14/37047
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted

reasons for decision

1. The matter was listed for hearing at the Tribunal in Liverpool on 15 October 2014. Mr Daniel Poolman, the father of the applicant, appeared for the applicant. Mr Wakim, director of the respondent, appeared for the respondent. Mr Poolman and Mr Wakim gave sworn evidence. Mr Poolman gave his evidence and made submissions by telephone, as he resides in Western Australia.

2. Prior to the hearing, the applicant had sought leave for his father to represent him, as the applicant works in the maritime industry in Western Australia, and is at sea during weekdays. At the hearing, Mr Wakim did not oppose Mr Daniel Poolman representing his son. Leave was accordingly granted. In any event, much of the interaction between the parties regarding the purchase of the motor vehicle which is the centre of the dispute involved Mr Daniel Poolman and Mr Wakim.

3. Prior to the hearing, orders had been made that the parties file and serve documentary evidence upon which they relied upon. The parties had filed and served their respective documents, and no legal objection was taken by either party to the Tribunal considering such documents. One document had not been filed and served by the respondent, being a copy of a consignment contract between itself and the owner of vehicle which the respondent sold to the applicant. Tender of that document was opposed. The Tribunal ruled that the document not be considered as part of the evidence, on the basis it had not been filed and served previously; Mr Poolman could not see the document (which would create prejudice); and if the document had any relevance, such relevance was exceedingly marginal.

4. Immediately prior to the hearing, the Tribunal further encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute. Attempts were made by the parties to resolve…