Watkins v Eagers MD Pty Ltd t/as Newstead Mazda - [2022] QCAT 369

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Watkins v Eagers MD Pty Ltd t/as Newstead Mazda [2022] QCAT 369

PARTIES: michael watkins

(applicant)

V

eagers md pty ltd trading as newstead mazda

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL115-21

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:
1. Michael Watkins is required to return the motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to Eagers MD Pty Ltd trading as Newstead Mazda within 14 days of the date of these orders.

2. Eagers MD Pty Ltd trading as Newstead Mazda is required to pay to Michael Watkins the amount of $60,272 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

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 motor vehicle of acceptable quality – whether motor vehicle fit for disclosed purposes – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – whether goods rejected during the rejection period – whether consumer entitled to refund

Australian Consumer Law, s 54, s 55, s 259, s 260, s 262,
s 263

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A

ACH Computing Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd trading as

Allcroft & Anor v Shem-mell Pty Ltd trading as Capalaba Car World [2021] QCAT 386
Brisbane City Jaguar Land Rover [2020] QCAT 176
Crawford v Sunco Motors Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 183
Foley v Westco Cairns Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 345
Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 44
Kablar Financial Services Pty Ltd v LSH Auto (Brisbane) Pty Ltd trading as Mercedes-Benz Brisbane [2020] QCAT 346
Laceur v Townsville Auto Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] QCAT 247
Lawless v Austral Pty Ltd trading as Brisbane City Land Rover [2021] QCAT 297
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182
Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 1520
Rigby v LDV Automotive Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] QCAT 316
Sullivan & Anor v James Frizelle’s Automotive Group Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 49
Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc (formerly Bertram Yachts) (No 4) [2018] FCA 426

Wheatcroft v Garry Crick’s (Nambour) Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 49

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 2 June 2021, Michael Watkins (‘the applicant’) filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the Tribunal. The respondent is Eagers MD Pty Ltd trading as Eagers Mazda (‘the respondent’).
The applicant is the owner of a 2019 Mazda CX-8 (‘the motor vehicle’).
The applicant purchased the motor vehicle from the respondent on 1 May 2019 for $60,272.
The applicant seeks relief under the Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The relief sought by the applicant…

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 Watkins v Eagers MD Pty Ltd t/as Newstead Mazda 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: [2022] QCAT 369
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Watkins filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, seeking relief under the Australian Consumer Law in respect of a 2019 Mazda CX-8 he purchased from Eagers MD Pty Ltd trading as Newstead Mazda. The applicant claimed that the motor vehicle was affected by 13 defects, and that the vehicle was not fit for the disclosed purpose of towing a boat and trailer weighing approximately 850 kilograms. The respondent did not file any evidence. The applicant filed statements and obtained a report from an independent assessor dated 28 January 2022. The Tribunal accepted the existence of six defects which were present at the time of supply, including the wheel balance issue, rear brake issue, interior fan failure, driver’s seat failure (and associated driver’s seat memory issue), rear suspension issue, and front brake issue. The Tribunal found that the series of defects, taken as a whole, amounted to a major failure, and that the applicant was entitled to a refund. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant return the motor vehicle to the respondent within 14 days of the date of the orders, and that the respondent pay to the applicant the amount of $60,272 within 28 days of the date of these orders. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim for damages as not being recoverable. The Tribunal also declined to order the respondent to pay the filing fee of $352, as the applicant had inflated his claim by including damages, which were not recoverable.

Orders