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.…

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 Sani v Tesla Motors Australia 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: [2025] QCAT 420
Decision Date: 22 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sani v Tesla Motors Australia involved the applicant, Mr. Sani, who sought a remedy under the Australian Consumer Law for a major failure in his Tesla vehicle. Mr. Sani purchased a Tesla vehicle from Tesla Motors Australia and subsequently experienced issues with the vehicle's performance, leading him to seek redress under the statutory guarantees provided by the Australian Consumer Law. The primary dispute centred on whether the statutory guarantee applied to the motor vehicle and whether the defect constituted a major failure, entitling Mr. Sani to a replacement vehicle or the return of the purchase price. Additionally, the court examined whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the proceeding and what remedies were available to the consumer.

The legal issues before the court included determining the applicability of the statutory guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law to a motor vehicle sold by Tesla Motors Australia. It was necessary to ascertain whether the defect in the vehicle constituted a major failure, which would entitle the consumer to a remedy, and whether the Tribunal had the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Another significant issue was the nature of the remedies available to the consumer in such circumstances, specifically whether Mr. Sani was entitled to a new vehicle or a refund of the purchase price, considering the time he had used the defective vehicle.

The court found that the statutory guarantee did apply to the motor vehicle, but the defect did not amount to a major failure. The court held that while the vehicle experienced issues, they did not reach the threshold of a major failure as defined under the Australian Consumer Law. Consequently, the court determined that the Tribunal did have the jurisdiction to decide the proceeding. The court concluded that Mr. Sani was not entitled to a new vehicle or the return of the purchase price, given he had used the vehicle for a period. The court dismissed the proceeding, ruling that the remedies sought by Mr. Sani were not available under the circumstances.

The court's decision was final, and the proceeding was dismissed. Mr. Sani was not granted the remedy he sought, and the court's ruling stood that the statutory guarantee did apply but the defect did not amount to a major failure. The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in such matters and provided a definitive outcome on the available remedies under the Australian Consumer Law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceeding is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.