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.

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 Thompson v Caravan HQ 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: [2025] QCAT 322
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in Thompson v Caravan HQ Pty Ltd involved a dispute between Christopher Thompson, a consumer, and Caravan HQ Pty Ltd, a supplier of a new caravan. Mr. Thompson purchased a caravan from Caravan HQ for $91,475.00. Post-purchase, Mr. Thompson experienced defects and mechanical issues with the caravan. He sought a refund under the Australian Consumer Law (Qld), claiming the caravan was not of acceptable quality and that the statutory warranties applied. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to order a refund and whether the statutory warranties applied.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the defects in the caravan existed at the time of supply, whether the caravan was of acceptable quality, and whether the statutory warranties applied. The Tribunal had to interpret the Australian Consumer Law provisions concerning consumer guarantees and warranties, particularly sections 54 and 60, which address acceptable quality and implied warranties. The central issue was whether Mr. Thompson could prove that the defects existed at the time of supply and that the caravan did not meet the acceptable quality standard.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal examined the evidence regarding the defects and their existence at the time of supply. It noted that Mr. Thompson had provided evidence of multiple defects that arose shortly after the purchase and persisted over time, suggesting they were not a result of subsequent misuse or wear and tear. The Tribunal found that the caravan did not meet the acceptable quality standard as required by the Australian Consumer Law. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the statutory warranties applied, as the defects were significant and not minor or trivial. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that Caravan HQ Pty Ltd must refund the purchase price to Mr. Thompson and that Mr. Thompson must return the caravan to the supplier.

The Tribunal ordered that Caravan HQ Pty Ltd pay Mr. Thompson $96,680.02 by a specified date and that Mr. Thompson return the caravan to the supplier. This decision underscores the importance of the supplier meeting consumer protection standards and the consumer's right to a refund if those standards are not met.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

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.