Sani v Tesla Motors Australia - [2025] QCAT 420

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Sani v Tesla Motors Australia [2025] QCAT 420

PARTIES:

JOE SANI

(applicant)

v

TESLA MOTORS AUSTRALIA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

MVL127-24

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

2 October 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

The proceeding is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – whether a statutory guarantee applies to a motor vehicle – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the proceeding – the remedies available to a consumer – whether the defect is a major failure – whether the applicant is entitled to a new motor vehicle or the price he having used the vehicle in the meantime

Australian Consumer Law, s 54, s 259, s 260, s 261, s 262

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50, s 50A

Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), s 12

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672

Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151
Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc. (formerly Bertram Yachts) (No 4) [2018] FCA 426

Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (Initial Trial) [2022] FCA 344

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr Mehta for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The applicant (‘Mr Sani’) has made application to the Tribunal for a motor vehicle dispute (‘original application’). He claims against the respondent (‘Tesla’), the retailer of the vehicle, a new vehicle, alternatively the price paid by him to Tesla for the vehicle.

Background

On 22 September 2023 Mr Sani and Tesla entered a motor vehicle order agreement. He agreed to purchase a model Y at a cost of $70,834.00 and paid an order fee for the vehicle of $400.00.
On 7 November 2023 Tesla gave to Mr Sani a final invoice. He paid to Tesla $50,001.00 on 14 November 2023 and the balance of the price, $20,433.00, on 15 November 2023.
Tesla delivered the motor vehicle to Mr Sani on 16 November 2023.
On 2 February 2024 Mr Sani returned the motor vehicle to Tesla complaining about steering. Tesla carried out a wheel alignment and tire pressure assessment but found nothing outside the manufacturer’s specifications. The invoice for the service includes the following concerns and repair notes:

1

1.       Concern: Customer states: Other Tires & Wheels - Car keep going to right track. So I have to hold steering and keep it to left to drive car straight.
Repair Notes: Carried out test drive of vehicle and confirmed wheel alignment is no out of spec. Please note, changes in tyre pressure can have a great effect on wheel alignment.
2.       Concern: Customer states that there is small bubbling happening on the dash.
Repair Notes: Could not confirm customer’s concern.
3.       Concern: Window screen wipers are too reactive. Customer states that they are damaging the screen.
Repair Notes: Could not confirm customer’s concern. Vehicle wiper sensitivity is set by Tesla software. No damage found to the windscreen.
4.       Concern: Customer states that the battery range is lower than expected
Repair Notes: Could not confirm customer’s concern. HV battery is working as designed with no signs of internal issues or alerts present. Carried out battery state of health check and no other issues found.
6.       Concern: Customer states that they steering is too heavy (does not feel like power steering is working)
Repair Notes: Could not confirm customer’s concern. Please note that using the steering in standard or sport mode will increase the effort used to turn the wheel. This is a feature of the car and the car has been confirmed to be working as designed.
Also to note, any differences in tyre pressures can have a large effect on the feeling of the steering.
On 14 February 2024 Mr Sani again returned the motor vehicle to Tesla. The invoice for the service records the following concerns and repair notes:
1. Concern: When the battery is fully charged, it still indicates a range of 435 kilometers. Booking order and car specifications indicating a range of 455 kilometers. Not provided any proof car is 455 km range as per specifications during last service It is company’s responsibility to prove the car is a 455 km range with full battery not 435.
Repair Notes: We have reviewed the data related to your high voltage system and performed an automated battery health check.
No abnormal alerts are present and no defects with your high voltage battery were detected. The vehicle’s displayed range is an estimate based on the EPA’s testing under specific conditions, and may not reflect actual driving distance remaining. This also differs from the range displayed on purchase which is not the advertised range but the WLTP rating all new cars in Australia are sold with and may not reflect real world conditions. In order to achieve the estimated range, the vehicle needs to be operated in such a way that the Wh/km energy consumption is equal to or less than the EPA rated efficiency.
Please visit for some useful information on range.
2. Concern: Customer states: Other Tires & Wheels - car is still pulling to right. This issue has not been resolved since the last service. I have to hold the steering towards left side for the car to go straight.
Repair Notes: Confirmed customer concern. Carried out alignment recheck, made adjustments as required. Road tested again and found steering still pulling to the right. Inspected steering rack and found replacement required due to revised part available. Will require rebooking for steering rack replacement.
Tesla admits the steering defect and offered to remedy it, at no cost to Mr Sani. He refused the offer asking that the motor vehicle be replaced with a new motor vehicle.
On 11 March 2024 Mr Sani sent to Tesla an email. Omitting formal parts, the email reads:
It has been nearly a month since I lodged the complaint and I have not received any written response from you or the resolution learn. It is getting very difficult lo drive the car especially on highways, with the defect. And it's also affecting my shoulders, causing a lot of pain trying to keep the car on track. And the psychological impact driving a brand new car knowing it's faulty.
I would like to get a decision from you or the resolution team as soon as possible.
Tesla answered Mr Sani’s email on 13 March 2024. It offered to remedy the steering defect but declined to replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle.
Subsequently, on 25 March 2024 Mr Sani sent to Tesla an email asserting Tesla has not addressed his concerns adequately.
On the same date, Tesla sent to Mr Sani a further email confirming ‘… [o]ur position on the concerns raised in the letter remain firm.’

Claim and response

Mr Sani outlines what is wrong with the motor vehicle in his original application. It reads:
Faulty steering rack - the car getting pulled to the right side constantly, and Tesla admitted this car is from a faulty batch, hence it doesn’t meet the sales contract, roadworthy criteria and Australian consumer rights guarantee.
I do not want to take the repair warranty because the car has not met the Austarlian consumer rights and guarantee and the sales contract in the first place. So I would like them to replace or refund.
Auto wiper function is not working as it should be according to the manufacturers specifications. It does not activate automatically while driving or adjust the wiper speed according to the rain. So I have to manually activate and adjust it on the screen according to the rain, which is dangerous while driving.
The cabin overheat protection does not get activated automatically sometimes when the the temperature reaches 40 degrees and this can damage the interior of the car.
During heavy rain, the camera sensors picking the wrong speed limit signs and suddenly slowing the car, for eg. on a 110 K road, during heavy rain the car slows right down to 70 K suddenly because of the camera sensors misreading the speed limit. Hence the cruise control function doesn’t work as per manufacturers guarantee. Only reply is they are aware of iisue but No solution after 3 months. (Errors in original document)
He claims a new motor vehicle or a refund of the price. He declines repair of the motor vehicle because ‘… it is going to cause huge depreciation once its repaired …’
Tesla’s response is comprehensive. It admits the motor vehicle is defective, causing the steering to lean to the right. It denies the allegations in relation to the claims by Mr Sani for auto wiper function, the cabin overheat protection feature and cameras, cruise control and speed limit recognition features. Those defects, Tesla alleges, were not identified prior to the filing of the original application.
The failure of the steering, Tesla asserts, is not a major failure within the meaning of section 260 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Tesla is prepared to remedy the steering defect and will investigate the other matters raised by Mr Sani. It denies the repairs will cause a ‘… huge depreciation …’

Motor vehicle assessment report

The Tribunal, on 4 September 2024, directed the preparation of a motor vehicle assessment report. The report, prepared by Mr Stephen Goddard, followed an inspection of the motor vehicle on 26 February 2024.
Mr Goddard’s qualifications and experience are annexed to his report. They are challenged by Tesla.
The following defects were identified by Mr Goddard:
(a)while driving the motor vehicle on a motorway, the steering drifted to the right activating the departure system;
(b)the windscreen wipers did not operate on automatic mode; and
(c)the cabin temperature protection did not appear to lower the cabin temperature.
He was unable to identify the likely cause of the defects. The steering and windscreen wipers defects were likely present at the time of purchase of the motor vehicle. He is unable to say whether the defect in the cabin temperature was present at the time of purchase.
The front tires on the motor vehicle, Mr Goddard states, show characteristics of incorrect steering geometry.

Directions

On 4 September 2024 Mr Sani was directed by the Tribunal to file and serve a statement of evidence. He did not to do so.
The directions went on to provide the parties will not be allowed to rely on evidence at the hearing of the proceeding not contained in a statement without justifying the additional evidence.
Mr Sani relied on the motor vehicle assessment report. He also relied on an email sent by him to Tesla on 6 May 2025 repeating his claim for a new motor vehicle or the price.
The issue confronting the Tribunal was to adjourn the hearing with directions for Mr Sani filing and serving a statement of evidence or to proceed with the hearing. The parties were keen to proceed, the option adopted by the Tribunal.

Hearing

Mr Sani gave evidence at the hearing of the proceeding. It was pointed out to him that at the time of inspection by Mr Goddard the motor vehicle had travelled 20,541kms. He was asked for the current distance travelled and responded about 30,000kms.
In his evidence in chief, Mr Sani again agreed the motor vehicle has now travelled about 30,000kms. He requires it to travel to work. Tesla did not deliver to him the vehicle he agreed to purchase. The motor vehicle assessment report testifies to what he has said about the ‘… the interior temperature, the fabrics has been damaged, and got scratches on the car – scratches on the windscreen because the wiper blade doesn’t work properly, and the assessor did examine these issues and found that this – there is – examiner – examiner also found that these fault are genuine and it’s happened.’
In cross-examination by Mr Mehta, who appeared on behalf of Tesla, Mr Sani conceded he continues to drive the motor vehicle despite it being unroadworthy.
Later, Mr Sani said:
My concern is you gave me the car which does not meet my requirements of what you promised.
He was asked about the windscreen wipers. They are too ‘reactive’ and have damaged the windscreen.
He believes the repairs are not minor repairs. His claim is for a new motor vehicle or the price.
Mr Sani addressed the Tribunal in closing. He believes he deserves a new motor vehicle ‘… which should drive straight on the road in the first place, but it should not be compromising the quality and safety of the people – other people on the road, and everyone.’
Mr Mehta, in closing, repeated Tesla is prepared to remedy the steering and any other outstanding defects, at no cost to Mr Sani. He challenged the allegation the repairs will devalue the motor vehicle.

Legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

The cause of action relied on by Mr Sani is unclear. Tesla refers to section 54 of the ACL. I assume Mr Sani is relying on the section.
Section 54 of the ACL, found in schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), provides that if a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer and the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction, there is a guarantee the goods are of acceptable quality.
Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
(a)fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied;
(b)acceptable in appearance and finish;
(c)free from defects;
(d)safe; and
(e)durable,
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).[1]
[1]ACL, s 54(2).

Jurisdiction

A proceeding for the purposes of a provision of the ACL listed in the table to section 50 of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘FT Act’) must be heard in the tribunal or in a court having jurisdiction for the proceeding, having regard to, for the tribunal, whether the subject of the proceeding:
(a)would be a minor civil dispute within the meaning of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’); or
(b)would be a matter to which section 50A applies.
The table to section 50(1) includes an action against a supplier of goods under section 259(2) of the ACL (to recover reasonable costs incurred by a consumer), section 259(3) (to recover compensation for the reduction in the value of the goods) and section 259(4) (to recover damages because of a failure to comply with a guarantee).
Section 50A of the FT Act provides that a person may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the Tribunal for an order mentioned in section 50A(2) for an action:
(a)under a provision of the ACL listed in the table to the section; and
(b)relating to a motor vehicle; and
(c)seeking an amount or value of other relief of not more than $100,000.00.
Motor vehicle is defined in subsection (4) to have the same meaning as defined in the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) (‘MDCA Act’). The definition includes ‘… a vehicle that moves on wheels and is propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is capable of being operated or used in a normal way.’[2]
[2]MDCA Act, s 12(1)(a).
The table to the section includes an action against a supplier of goods under section 259(2) of the ACL (to recover reasonable costs incurred by a consumer), section 259(3) (to recover compensation for the reduction in the value of the goods) and section 259(4) (to recover damages because of a failure to comply with a guarantee).

Remedies

The remedies available to a consumer for a failure to comply with a statutory guarantee are found in part 5.4 of the ACL. If the failure to comply with a guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:
(a)the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or
(b)if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time, the consumer may:
(i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or
(ii) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection.[3]
[3]ACL, s 259(2).
If the failure to comply with a guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:
(a)subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection; or
(b)by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.[4]
[4]ACL, s 259(3).
A failure to comply with a guarantee in section 54 is a major failure if, inter alia:
(a)the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure;
(b)the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(c)the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.[5]
[5]ACL, s 260(1).
A failure is also a major failure if the failure is one of two or more failures to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that apply to the supply and the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of those failures, taken as a whole.[6]
[6]ACL, s 260(2).
If, under section 259(2)(a), a consumer requires a supplier of goods to remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(l)(b), the supplier may comply with the requirement by, inter alia, repairing the goods, replacing the goods with goods of an identical type or refunding:
(a)any money paid by the consumer for the goods; and
(b)an amount that is equal to the value of any other consideration provided by the consumer for the goods.[7]
[7]ACL, s 261.
A consumer is not entitled, under section 259, to notify a supplier of goods that the consumer rejects the goods if, inter alia, the rejection period for the goods has ended. The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(l)(b) to become apparent having regard to:
(a)the type of goods; and
(b)the use to which a consumer is likely to put them; and
(c)the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and
(d)the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent.[8]

Consideration

[8]ACL, s 262.

Does the statutory guarantee in section 54 of the ACL apply?

It is common ground the motor vehicle was supplied by Tesla to Mr Sani with the statutory guarantee of acceptable quality. The vehicle was ‘supplied’, ‘in trade or commerce’, ‘to a customer’, and ‘other than by way of sale by auction’.
The concession given by Tesla is for the steering defect. It denies the claims for the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers.
Mr Sani, on 2 February 2024, complained to Tesla about the windscreen wipers of the motor vehicle being too reactive and damaging the windscreen. Tesla inspected the windscreen of the vehicle but was unable to confirm the defect.

Mr Goddard identified the steering defect. He was unable to identify a cabin temperature defect. The windscreen wipers did not operate in automatic mode.
I accept Tesla’s concession of a steering defect. The cabin temperature defect was not confirmed by Mr Goddard. It may be found to be correct on further investigation. The defect identified by Mr Goddard concerning the windscreen wipers is different to Mr Sani’s complaint. What he says may well be correct but will require further investigation.
The statutory guarantee applied to the motor vehicle. It applied to the steering and may apply to the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers.

Was the statutory guarantee in section 54 of the ACL complied with?

It is clear goods must possess all of the qualities in section 54(2) of the ACL, to the requisite standard, to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. A failure to possess one of the qualities is a failure to comply with the guarantee.[9]
[9]Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc. (formerly Bertram Yachts) (No 4) [2018] FCA 426 (‘Vautin’), per Derrington J, at [142]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672 (‘Jayco’), per Wheelahan J at [25].
The quality of the goods at the time of supply will determine whether they are of acceptable quality.[10] The applicable standard of ‘acceptable quality’ is determined by what the ‘reasonable consumer’ would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in section 54(3). The relevant enquiry is necessarily objective.[11] In Jayco, at [26], Wheelahan explained:
The standard of acceptable quality in s 54(2) has as its reference point a construct, namely the objective standard of a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects of the goods. The reasonable consumer sits with an array of other hypothetical persons who have been recruited by the law and by reference to whom objective standards are evaluated. Such a person has been described as an anthropomorphic conception of justice that is and must be the court itself. (Citations omitted)
[10]Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715, per Perram J at [377]; Jayco, at [27]; Vautin, at [170] – [171], [273].
[11]Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151, per Moore J at [64], [72], per Branson J with whom Jacobson J agreed, at [81]; Capic, at [105].
The ‘reasonable consumer’ is assumed to be ‘… fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods) …’[12] Here, the reasonable consumer is taken to be fully acquainted with the nature of the steering defect and perhaps the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers defects, including how it causes the motor vehicle to malfunction.
[12]ACL, S 54(2).
Section 54(2) of the ACL matters
Fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied) (ACL, section 54(2)(a))
Mr Goddard has confirmed the steering causes the motor vehicle to drift to the right activating the lane departure system. His qualifications and experience to express the conclusion are challenged by Tesla. The defect, however, is conceded.
On the evidence presently available, I am unable to say whether the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers are not fit for all purposes as a reasonable consumer would regard as acceptable.
Acceptable in appearance and finish (ACL, section 54(2)(b))
I am satisfied that the motor vehicle was acceptable in appearance and finish. The evidence, including Mr Goddard’s evidence, does not suggest otherwise.
Free from defects (ACL, section 54(2)(c))
Mr Sami described in detail the consequences of the steering defect. Mr Goddard confirms the defect.
The defect is conceded by Tesla.
The claims in respect of the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers are unclear. Mr Sani testifies to the cabin temperature not lowering the temperature of the cabin and the windscreen wipers scratching the windscreen. Mr Goddard states he was unable to test the cabin temperature and the windscreen wipers were not operating in automatic mode.
The lack of evidence in chief of Mr Sani and the brief report by Mr Goddard do not assist in reaching a conclusion on the matters.
Durable (ACL, section 54(2)(e))
The evidence is silent on whether the defects were durable as a reasonable consumer would expect. The steering defect may require additional servicing of the motor vehicle. However, in the absence of relevant evidence, the matter is not open to determination.
Conclusion on section 54(2) of the ACL matters
The motor vehicle did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. It is then necessary to consider the mandatory requirements of section 54(3) of the ACL.
Section 54(3) of the ACL matters
The matters for the purposes of section 54(2) are:
(a)the nature of the goods;
(b)the price of the goods (if relevant);
(c)any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods;
(d)any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and
(e)any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.
First, the nature of the goods (section 54(3)(a) of the ACL), the motor vehicle was a new vehicle. It should not have moved to the right causing the lane departure system to activate. There is nothing before the Tribunal that a reasonable consumer would regard as acceptable the vehicle moving to the right unassisted by the driver or vehicle.
Secondly, the price of the motor vehicle (section 54(3)(b)) was not insignificant. The vehicle should not have behaved in the manner it did. The defect was present at the time of purchase; it should not have been present.
Determining the question of acceptable quality on a common basis
In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (Initial Trial),[13] Lee J, at [199] and following, considered whether a court can and should determine a motor vehicle the subject of a proceeding was of acceptable quality on a common basis. It is not suggested by Mr Sani and will not be considered in the circumstances here.
[13][2022] FCA 344.
Loss and damage
It is here that Mr Sani stumbles.
On 22 September 2023 Mr Sani purchased the motor vehicle from Tesla. It was delivered to him on 16 November 2023.
On 2 February 2024 Mr Sani returned the motor vehicle to Tesla. His complaints, including the complaint about steering, are set out in paragraph [5] of these reasons for decision. The other complaints were unconfirmed.
On 14 February 2024 Mr Sani returned to Tesla. He again complained about the steering defect and battery charge. Tesla offered to replace the steering, at no cost to Mr Sani.
Mr Sani refused the offer. He asked that the motor vehicle be replaced or the price.
In the meantime, Mr Sani has continued to drive the motor vehicle. At the time of inspection by Mr Goddard, it had travelled 20,541kms. In evidence, he said it has now travelled about 30,000kms.
A number of matters flow out of Mr Sani’s continued use of the motor vehicle. First, his continued use of the vehicle is inconsistent with it having been rejected and claiming a new vehicle or the price. He has had the use of the vehicle for about two years, albeit with a steering defect, and continued to use it. He cannot now claim a new vehicle or the price.
Secondly, Mr Sani asserts the steering defect is a major failure. The assertion is without particulars or evidence. Tesla asserts that it is not a major defect, again without particulars or evidence.
Mr Sani asserts the repair will affect the value of the motor vehicle. Again, the assertion is without particulars or evidence.
Thirdly, in the absence of particulars and evidence the defect is a major defect, a consumer, under section 259(2) of the ACL, was able to require a supplier to remedy the defect within a reasonable time or if the requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time, the consumer may otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer or, subject to section 262 (when consumers are not entitled to reject goods), notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the grounds of rejection. Here, almost from the outset, Tesla has been prepared to remedy the steering defect, at no cost to Mr Sani. In the absence of particulars and evidence, I am unable to conclude whether there is or will be a diminution in the value of the motor vehicle.
In any case, Mr Sani’s claim is for a new motor vehicle or the price. Tesla’s offer to remedy the defect has been rejected, and he continues to use the vehicle.
In the circumstances, Mr Sani’s claim for a new motor vehicle or the price must be rejected.
The outcome for Mr Sani is unfortunate. He has not established the defect was a major failure and his attempt to reject the motor vehicle was not perfected, as he continued to drive the vehicle for the past two years. Tesla is prepared to remedy the steering defect and the cabin temperature and windscreen wipers defects if established. Mr Sani should accept the offer.

Decision

The decision of the Tribunal is that the proceeding be dismissed.