Thompson v Caravan HQ Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 322

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Thompson v Caravan HQ Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 322

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON

(applicant)

v

CARAVAN HQ PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL052-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

21 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

1. Caravan HQ Pty Ltd must pay to Christopher Thompson the amount of $96,680.02 on or before 4.00 pm on Friday, 26 September 2025;

2. In exchange for payment of the amount of $96,680.02, Christopher Thompson will return to the Respondent the Network RV Caravan which is the Dual Axle 22’ Family Terrain Tuff Caravan NRV-9 2021, including the “Extra” accessories and or equipment, described in the Contract for the purchase of a New Caravan with the Respondent dated 17 July 2021.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – JURISDICTION – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a refund by the supplier of goods under the Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – where purchase price of motor vehicle was $91,475.00 – where new caravan sold – where defects arose after purchase of the vehicle – where further mechanical defects occurred several months later – whether defect complained of existed as at the date of supply – whether the caravan was of acceptable quality –whether the statutory warranties applied

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50, s 50A, Australian Consumer Law (Queensland), s 54, s 56

Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), Schedule 1, s 3

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

Holt-Lea v O’Connor & Anor (2022) QCAT 363

Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd (2023) QCAT 37

Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (2022) FCA 344

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Christopher Thompson (‘the Applicant’) purchased a Network RV Caravan from Caravan HQ Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent’) and in these proceedings seeks a refund of the purchase price of $91,475.00 and other costs.

Background Facts

The Applicant saw a Network RV Caravan at the Rockhampton Caravan Show and was impressed with the high quality build in the display vehicle.
On 17 July 2021 the Applicant entered into a written contract with the Respondent for the purchase of a new caravan. That caravan was a Network RV Caravan described as being a 22’ Family Terrain Tuff Caravan NRV-9 2021 (‘the caravan’). The Applicant was informed that any caravan repair centre in Australia would be able to help with any warranty issues which was an important consideration for the Applicant who resides in Central Queensland approximately 800 km from the Respondent’s premises in south-east Queensland.
The Network caravan manufacturer built the caravan by August 2022 when the Respondent was able to deliver it to the Applicant.
On 1 September 2022 the Applicant took delivery of the caravan and towed it from the Respondent’s premises to his residence.
Following the Applicant’s arrival at his residence, he sent an email on 2 September 2022 to the Respondent which set out the following issues he had with the new caravan:
(a)loose rear bumper (only just hanging on) – also not welded, paint flaking. This also caused a water hose leak from rubbing;
(b)caravan sways all over the road (even after wheel alignment which was significantly out);
(c)hole in the wall on top bunk (found when making bed for first time);
(d)shower was leaking water from door;
(e)cupboard trim stuck on with double sided tape that has come loose;
(f)sliding door to the bathroom doesn’t close straight so can see straight through to the bathroom;
(g)black strip on front of caravan flew out;
(h)strip under fridge has been butchered and left that way;
(i)all the stickers on the van have bubbled/debris under them, which (the Applicant says) I’m sure will eventually get worse.
The Respondent advised the Applicant to take the caravan to Capricorn Caravan Centre, in Rockhampton, which was the closest repair agent two (2) hours away, for a quote to fix the nine defects referred to above. However, Capricorn Caravan Centre was not willing to deal with warranty work for the Respondent as it said it was “not getting paid”. The Applicant says that he was at a loss as to where to go for warranty work.
By 16 December 2022 there was a further defect identified which the Applicant describes as:
(a)cupboard next to the bed bubbling on the inside and out.
On 16 December 2022 the Applicant sent further emails to the “support email address” of the Respondent. However, those emails kept “bouncing back” from the Respondent.
On 25 December 2022 following light consistent rain for a few hours the Applicant found that the caravan:
(a)now had water leaking through the bathroom window straight onto a power point;
(b)water in the roof started to bow the ceiling in the main area of the caravan;
(c)soft spots in the flooring;
(d)bedroom window leaking;
(e)rear hatch light full of water and dripping;
(f)awning above doorway leaking.
This was the first occasion on which the caravan had been in any wet/inclement weather since being delivered on 1 September 2022.
The Applicant says that other issues have arisen, but have not been reported to the Respondent, or have resulted from water ingress to the caravan on Christmas Day 2022. These issues numbered a total of 19 separate defects which have been described by the Applicant[1] to which the Tribunal refers without setting out each of those and defects.
[1]See Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute and to the attached “full timeline” at page 1–2.
Accordingly, since 1 September 2022 the Applicant has identified 35 separate defects with the caravan. The Applicant also says that there was a failure of the low voltage disconnect module. The Respondent organised a replacement for this module to be sent to and installed by the Applicant. The Applicant says that although it was rectified this is just another issue that has added to his stress and disappointment with this caravan.
The Applicant says that his family have spent 10 nights in the caravan since 1 September 2022 and half the issues were identified within hours of leaving the Respondent’s premises on that date. The Applicant says they do not know what has happened differently with their caravan compared to the caravan on display at the earlier Rockhampton Caravan Show. The Applicant also says that the caravan is not of acceptable quality and seeks a refund or full replacement of the caravan.
On 6 January 2023 the Applicant made comments on a Facebook page asking for someone to comment. He says he was then blocked from that page by the Respondent. That afternoon the CEO of the Respondent telephoned the Applicant and arranged to pick up the caravan. The Respondent says:
We were moving caravans up to our new Townsville dealership in the first few weeks of January, our drivers would be returning without a van, so I decided to make arrangements to have his caravan collected from his house….
I did inform him that getting the van down at that time wouldn’t mean we could not start work on it straight away, it would be sitting here for a period of time awaiting the repairs to first be approved by the manufacturer and then our schedule allowing us to begin work on it, at that point we were already booked out until March 2023 I asked him to supply a full list of issues, which he did.
The Respondent said that it transported the Applicant’s caravan at its own cost and as a gesture of goodwill.
On 9 January 2023 the caravan was picked up from the Applicant’s premises and was transported back to the Respondent’s premises. Since then, the caravan has remained with the Respondent.
On 10 March 2023 the Applicant filed an Application-Motor Vehicle Dispute in the Tribunal which commenced these proceedings. The Applicant states in that Application:
(a)the caravan does not meet the consumer guarantee;
(b)the caravan has been with the Respondent since 9 January 2023 and has not begun to be repaired by the date specified as at 10 March 2023;
(c)the Applicant is out of pocket for multiple trips that were planned in the caravan that they’ve had to book accommodation;
(d)no support has been provided by the Respondent nor by Network RV;
(e)the Applicant is not able to obtain repairs locally so that if they get the caravan back and it has further issues, the Applicant has to travel considerable distance back to the Respondent’s premises;
(f)this has affected the Applicant’s mental health and his family negatively;
The Applicant relies upon the Australian Consumer Law Queensland and the Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) for a refund of the purchase price and other costs.
On 21 July 2023 the Respondent filed a statement of evidence and other documents including a Report from a Caravan Assessor. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant has concerns regarding the caravan. However, the Respondent contends:
We do not however agree that the warranty concerns he had raised meet the standards for a full refund of his purchase.

Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings by reason of section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘Fair Trading Act’). The Tribunal will proceed to consider the Applicant’s claim under this provision relating to the Australian Consumer Law.
While the Applicant relies upon the Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), a caravan is not a “warranted vehicle” for the purposes of that legislation.[2] Accordingly, the statutory warranties in that legislation have no application to this caravan. It is not necessary to consider the Applicant’s claim made under that Act.
[2]See Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) sch 1 s 3.

Expert Assessors’ Reports

Both parties in these proceedings have obtained a report from Assessors.
The Applicant obtained a Report dated 5 July 2023 from Frank Cottonaro of National Assessing and Engineering. Mr Cottonaro took delivery of the caravan from the Respondent on 15 June 2023 and transported it to his assessment premises for the purposes of the inspection and the making of the Report. He returned the caravan to the Respondent on 29 June 2023. He says:
The first issue I encountered with the caravan was when I travelled over 90 km/h, the caravan became very unstable and began to sway from side to side. Upon arrival to the assessment centre I took a tow ball weight measurement. The weight recorded was 195 kg. I believe this weight to be too light for the weight of this vehicle
Mr Cottonaro says that on return of the caravan to the Respondent on 29 June 2023:
I experienced the same unstable sway from the caravan when exceeded 90 km/h when travelling on the M1 from Southport to Yatala.
His Report refers to the purchase and subsequent history of the caravan, various documentations with photos. The results of his inspection in the Report identify a significant number of defects[3] with the caravan to which the Tribunal refers without setting out each of those defects here. In his opinion:
Along with numerous cosmetic defects listed, there are some major defects that would deem the caravan unsafe for use. Those defects are:
poor welding of the subframe;
electrical wiring has not been fitted and secured properly;
the electrical wire is exposed to water leaks;
caravan is unbalanced and sways when towing.
[3]See Report of Mr Cottonaro dated 5 July 2023 at Attachment page 1 and page 2.
Mr Cottonaro refers to other serious defects relating to the roof with excessive amount of sealer being used, water ingress to the caravan, windows not waterproof when secured, wall panels lack a substantial frame around the window opening causing the frame to flex under minimal load; flooring made from chipboard which sags underload when walking throughout the caravan and the flooring has not been properly sealed and has the potential to absorb moisture and fail within a short period of time. He concludes the report by stating:
The caravan has been poorly built using inferior parts;
The caravan has serious defects that make it unsafe for use;
In his belief the caravan, in its current state, is not fit for purpose.
Mr Cottonaro says that he has read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agrees to be bound by it and the Report has been prepared in accordance with the Code
The Respondent relied upon evidence from Peter Naylor. He is a Vehicle Assessor and has worked in the caravan RV industry. He also has a Bachelor of Science, Post-Graduate Certificate in Management, a Diploma of Engineering and a Certificate in Finance and Accounting.
In an undated Report from Peter Naylor, he says he conducted an inspection of the caravan at the request of the Respondent and in his expert opinion, the caravan is safe for use and believes it is fit for its intended purpose.
Mr Naylor inspected the caravan at the premises of the Respondent at 18 Business Street, Yatala in Queensland. It does not appear from his Report that he towed the caravan and it was at all material times in the Respondent’s premises for the purposes of his inspection.
At the time of Mr Naylor’s inspection, the Respondent had conducted warranty work to rectify issues which had arisen with the caravan. He says that the caravan:
(a)has incurred water ingress through both the roof and through a window. Water ingress was able to occur due to insufficient sealant having been used during manufacture;
(b)he was unable to replicate any water leaks in the caravan;
(c)there is some obvious movement with carpentry in the caravan (which is normal);
(d)electrical wires are in close proximity to plumbing but they are not exposed wires. The wires are 12 V wiring, not 240 V wires, so they do not present any safety issues in the event they come into contact with water;
(e)there was some minor damage to the underside of the caravan which appeared to be caused by stones or rocks from the road;
(f)there are imperfections in some of the warranty work that the Respondent has carried out but these are only cosmetic and recommends that the Respondent should revisit these and potentially carry out further work;
(g)the ball weight is just under 200 kg. This allows for additional weight to be placed in the front of the caravan without affecting the towing stability to the caravan;
(h)he was unable to find any major structural defects or major failings with the caravan.
The significant difference between the Reports of both Assessors is that Mr Cottonaro’s Report was prepared from an inspection prior to any warranty work being completed by the Respondent on the caravan whereas Mr Naylor inspected the caravan after warranty work had been completed by the Respondent. The Reports differ in that they report on defects at different points in time when the caravan either has not, or has, been the subject of warranty repairs.
In considering both Reports, the Tribunal takes into account a number of factors which include:
(a)Mr Cottonaro inspected the caravan when the defects, the subject of these proceedings, had not been rectified and no warranty work had been performed on the caravan;
(b)Mr Cottonaro, unlike Mr Naylor, towed the caravan for some considerable distance along the M1 Highway (from Yatala to Southport and subsequently by a return trip) and ascertained that the caravan swayed at speeds of 90 km/h or greater. Mr Naylor was not able to identify this issue as he only inspected the caravan at the Respondent’s premises;
(c)While it is apparent that Mr Cottonaro’s Report was prepared prior to Mr Naylor’s Report, Mr Naylor does not deal in anyway with the significant list of defects found by Mr Cottonaro and referred to in his Report. Even if these defects have been repaired under warranty works, there is no statement in Mr Naylor’s Report that he has inspected the workshop records or other documents of the Respondent showing what warranty work had been completed. While Mr Naylor acknowledges that warranty work has been undertaken, nowhere in his Report does he identify what that warranty work was which does not allow for any direct comparison or assessment to be made with Mr Cottonaro’s Report.
(d)Significantly, Mr Naylor does not deal with “major defects” referred to in the Report from Mr Cottonaro and in particular these defects:
(i)      poor welding of the subframe;
(ii)      electrical wiring has not been fitted and secured properly;
(iii)     caravan is unbalanced and sways when towing apart from some discussion by Mr Naylor of the ball weight being under 200 kg.
The Tribunal after considering both Reports, has a strong preference for Mr Cottonaro’s Report because of the matters already referred to in (a) to (d) in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the contents of and opinion in the Report from Mr Cottonaro and makes findings as set out in that Report, particularly with respect to the significant number of “defects” and also the “major defects” identified by Mr Cottonaro. The Tribunal does not accept the contents of and opinions in the Report from Mr Naylor.

The Applicant’s Reliance on s 50A of the Fair Trading Act

The Fair Trading Act provides that a person may apply, in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), to the Tribunal in proceedings under the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) (‘ACL’) relating to a motor vehicle seeking an amount or value of not more than $100,000.00.
In proceedings in reliance of the Fair Trading Act, the Tribunal may make a number of orders which include:[4]
(a)an order requiring a party to the proceedings to pay a stated amount to a stated person;
(b)an order requiring a party to the proceedings to return goods that relate to the claim and are in the party’s possession or control to a stated person.
[4]Fair Trading Act s 50A(2).
The relevant provisions in the Fair Trading Act which apply to an action brought by a party are listed in the Table in s 50A. Those proceedings can include an action for damages against suppliers of goods to recover:
(a)an amount of loss or damage or the reasonable costs incurred by consumers;
(b)compensation for reduction in value of goods;
(c)damages because of failure to comply with a guarantee.
The proceedings must be heard in a Tribunal or in a Court having jurisdiction for the proceedings, having regard to:[5]
(a)for the Tribunal, whether the subject of the proceeding:
(i) would be a minor civil dispute within the meaning of the QCAT Act; or
(ii) would be a matter to which s 50A applies; or
(b)for a Court:
(i) any civil jurisdictional limit, including any monetary limit, applying to the Court.
[5]Ibid s 50(1).
The Applicant has brought these proceedings in the Tribunal relying on s 50A of the Fair Trading Act.
For these proceedings the Applicant is seeking a refund and to recover loss and damage in reliance upon a guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law. The relevant guarantee relied on in these proceedings is:
(a)the guarantee of acceptable quality.[6]
[6]ACL s 54.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s proceedings come within the remedies available under the Fair Trading Act which is the relevant “enabling Act” for the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Whether the Applicant can successfully rely on a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality will be determined according to the evidence.

In these proceedings the Applicant purchased the caravan for $91,475.00 from the Respondent by a “Contract For the Purchase of a New Caravan” dated 17 July 2021. The Applicant seeks a refund of the purchase price for the motor vehicle and other expenses totalling $5,205.02 which are itemised as “Out of Pocket Costs”:
(a)RACQ Insurance for 6 months:   $842.82
(b)Registration for 6 months:   $127.20
(c)Towing for Independent Assessment:                   $495.00
(d)Towing for Independent Assessment   $440.00
(e)Assessment by National Assessing and Quoting: $3300.00
(f)Total of “Out of Pocket Costs”   $5,205.02
The total claim by the Applicant in these proceedings is $96,680.02. In the Application filed in the Tribunal the Applicant relies on the provisions in s 50A of the Fair Trading Act relating to claims not exceeding $100,000.00. As the Applicant’s claim is less than this monetary threshold the Tribunal has jurisdiction in accordance with s 50A of the Fair Trading Act to hear the Applicant’s caravan dispute with the Respondent.

What are the Available Remedies based on s 50A of the Fair Trading Act

The Table of provisions in s 50A of the Fair Trading Act includes actions against suppliers of goods based upon various provisions in the ACL to recover:
(a)an amount of loss or damage;
(b)reasonable costs incurred;
(c)compensation for reduction in value of goods; and
(d)damages because of a failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in the ACL.
The relevant guarantees in these proceedings are:
(a)guarantee that the motor vehicle supplied is of acceptable quality (s 54 of the ACL); and
(b)guarantee based on the supply of goods by description (s 56 of the ACL).
The Applicant’s proceedings raise the issue whether the Respondent is in breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality.

Guarantee of Acceptable Quality in s 54 of the ACL

The ACL in s 54 provides for a guarantee of acceptable quality where a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer and that supply does not occur by way of sale by auction.
The Applicant purchased the new caravan by a contract and not by way of auction. The contract for the purchase of the caravan occurred in trade or commerce from the Respondent, the supplier. The issue that arises then is whether the caravan was of acceptable quality when sold by the Respondent to the Applicant.
Goods are of “acceptable quality” provided they are:[7]
(a)fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
(b)acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c)free from defects; and
(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 s 54(3) of the ACL.
[7]Ibid s 54(2).
The matters in s 54(3) to which a reasonable consumer would have regard are:
(a)the nature of the goods; and
(b)the price of the goods (if relevant); and
(c)any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and
(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.
The construction and interpretation of s 54 of the ACL was considered in Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd where Justice Lee stated:[8]
Despite the obscure drafting of other provisions of the ACL, s 54 is relatively straightforward. The continued use of the conjunction “and” in s 54(2) makes clear that goods must possess all of the qualities listed in s 54(2), to the requisite standard, in order to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. Failure to possess any one of those qualities will result in failure to comply with the guarantee…
The question whether the goods are of acceptable quality is to be answered by reference to the quality of the goods at the time of supply.
The time to assess whether goods are of acceptable quality is determined by reference to the quality of the goods at the time of supply which has been adopted in decisions of the Tribunal.[9]
[8](2022) FCA 344, [164]–[165].
[9]Holt-Lea v O’Connor & Anor [2022] QCAT 363, [29]; Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37, [38].
The guarantee of acceptable quality is to be determined according to the evidence:
(a)whether the caravan supplied by Respondent to the Applicant complied with the statutory criteria in s 54(2) of the ACL; and
(b)the time for compliance with s 54(2) is at the time of the supply of the vehicle on 1 September 2022.
According to the evidence before the Tribunal, taking into account the relevant considerations in s 54(3) of the ACL, the caravan at the time of supply on 1 September 2022 by the Respondent to the Applicant had the following features in terms of section 54(2) of the ACL:
(a)Was not fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied as it contained the significant number of defects referred to in the evidence of the Applicant and of Mr Cottonaro. The Tribunal is particularly mindful of the nine defects referred to in the email from the Applicant on 2 September 2022 which included the defect the van sways all over the road (even after wheel alignment which was significantly out). The Tribunal also takes into account the “major defects” referred to in the Report by Mr Cottonaro and his opinion that he believes that in its current state the caravan is unfit for purpose.
(b)Was not acceptable in appearance and finish taking into account the evidence of the Applicant that by 2 September 2022 the caravan had a loose rear bumper (only just hanging on and not welded), paint flaking, hole in the wall on top bunk; cupboard trims stuck on with double sided tape which had become loose, sliding door to the bathroom doesn’t close straight so can see straight through to the bathroom, black strip on the front of the caravan flew out and all stickers on the van have bubble/debris under the stickers. Several of these defects were confirmed by Mr Cottonaro’s inspection as well as the reported list of defects which identified additional cosmetic imperfections.
(c)Was not free from defects according to the evidence of the Applicant in particular the nine defects identified in the email of 2 September 2022 as well as the other seven additional defects identified on 16 December 2022 and 25 December 2022 in his statement of evidence filed with the Application. The defects identified on 25 December 2022 relating to water ingress to the caravan have already been discussed above in the context that that was the first occasion the caravan was subject to inclement/wet weather conditions. The Applicant’s evidence is supported by the Report from Mr Cottonaro which identifies a substantial list of defects which have their origins at the time of supply.
(d)Was not safe because the Applicant’s evidence is that the caravan would sway all over the road (even after wheel alignment which was significantly out). Significantly, the Report from Mr Cottonaro refers to major defects which include poor welding of the subframe and the caravan sways while being towed and his opinion the caravan has serious defects which deem it unsafe to use.
(e)Was not durable according to the evidence from Mr Cottonaro as the caravan had been poorly built using inferior parts, roof components which had been secured with excessive amount of sealer was showing signs of failure. Water was leaking through the roof units of the caravan. The flooring is made from chipboard which sags underload when walking throughout the caravan and is also exposed to the elements and has not been properly sealed. The flooring has the potential to absorb moisture and fail within a short period of time. The window units are made from flimsy plastic which are not waterproof when secured.
The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the caravan required significant repairs. The Tribunal accepts the evidence referred to in (a) to (e) in the preceding paragraph and also accepts that a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would not regard the caravan supplied on 1 September 2020 as acceptable having regard to the matters in s 54(2) and (3).
The Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes that at the time of supply of the caravan there is evidence before the Tribunal that there were many defects present as identified by the Applicant and Mr Cottonaro. For these reasons, the Applicant has established that the caravan was not of acceptable quality at the date of supply. The Tribunal makes a finding that the condition of the caravan at the date of its supply by the Respondent to the Applicant was a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality. The Applicant is entitled to damages and to the remedies available under the Australian Consumer Law Queensland provisions.

Damages

The Applicant seeks a refund of the purchase price of $91,475.00. As the Tribunal has found the sale was in breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality, the Applicant is entitled an award of damages in the amount of that purchase price. The Tribunal will make an order that the Respondent pay to the Applicant the $91,475.00.
The Applicant also seeks damages of $5,205.02 resulting from his “Out of Pocket Costs” to which reference has already been made. These costs arise as a consequence of the contract and the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. They arise directly from a breach of that guarantee and were reasonably incurred in the expectation that the Applicant would be able to have the continued use of the caravan. The Tribunal accepts those costs of $5,205.02 as arising from the breach of the guarantee and finds that the Applicant has suffered those further costs in the sum of $5,205.02. The Tribunal will make an order that the Respondent pay to the Applicant the $5,205.02
The total amount to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant is $96,680.02.
A further issue relates to the caravan. Since about January 2023 the caravan has been in the physical possession of the Respondent at its premises in south-east Queensland. Notwithstanding that the Respondent currently has the possession of the caravan, a formal order will be made for the Applicant to return the caravan to the Respondent so as to enable the Respondent after these proceedings to deal adequately in the way it sees fit with the caravan without any issue arising of the Applicant retaining any ownership in the caravan. While an order for the return of the caravan may be symbolic on that basis, nevertheless there are other matters the parties will have to attend to relating to the return of the caravan and in particular any transfer of registration or completion of other documents associated with the return of the vehicle. That can be attended to by the parties when the caravan is returned to the Respondent in exchange for the payment of the $96,680.02. A formal order will be made that in exchange for the payment of $96,680.02 that the Applicant formally return the caravan to the Respondent.

Orders

The Tribunal makes the following Orders:
(a)Caravan HQ Pty Ltd must pay to Christopher Thompson the amount of $96,680.02 on or before 4.00 pm on Friday, 26 September 2025;
(b)In exchange for payment of the amount of $96,680.02 Christopher Thompson will return to the Respondent the Network RV Caravan which is the Dual Axle 22’ Family Terrain Tuff Caravan NRV-9 2021, including the “Extra” accessories and or equipment, described in the Contract for the purchase of a New Caravan with the Respondent dated 17 July 2021.