Werczyk v Commodore Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] WADC 35

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WERCZYK -v- COMMODORE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2025] WADC 35
CORAM:   SEFTON DCJ
HEARD:   19 SEPTEMBER 2024 & FURTHER SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON 7 JANUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   19 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 45 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ANDREW ROY WERCZYK
Appellant
AND
COMMODORE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE LATKINS
File Number            :   CTC/307/2023

Catchwords:

Appeal - Consumer guarantees - Fitness for purpose - Time for assessing breach at time of supply - Procedural fairness

Legislation:

Australian Consumer Law, s 54, s 55, s 64
Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA), s 18, s 19
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 40

Result:

Appeal allowed
Decision set aside
Matter remitted for rehearing

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Capic [2023] FCAFC 179
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151; (2003) 130 FCR 182

SEFTON DCJ:

In February 2022 Mr Werczyk purchased equipment from Commodore Australia Pty Ltd including a solar inverter/charger and distribution board.
Mr Werczyk later commenced proceedings against Commodore Australia in the Magistrates Court for alleged breaches of consumer law guarantees arising under the Australian Consumer Law[1] (ACL) in relation to the quality and fitness for purpose of the equipment he purchased.
[1] Australian Consumer Law (sch 2) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 131. See also Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA) s 18 and s 19.
Following a trial, at which both parties were not legally represented, the trial magistrate delivered judgment dismissing the proceedings. Mr Werczyk appeals against that decision.
The respondent did not seek to appear and be heard in response to the appeal other than in relation to any costs order that may be sought against it.
The principal appeal ground advanced by Mr Werczyk concerns an error contended to have been made by the trial magistrate in not correctly applying the ACL and not considering and making a determination as to whether, at the time the goods were supplied to him, they were not fit for purpose.
Mr Werczyk also advanced various other arguments concerning other errors allegedly made by the trial magistrate.
For the following reasons I am satisfied that the principal ground of appeal is made out, the appeal should be allowed, the decision of the trial magistrate set aside and the proceedings remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted court.

Mr Werczyk's claims in the primary proceedings

Mr Werczyk's claims in the primary proceedings included a claim that the equipment supplied was not fit for purpose. This included because the equipment was said not to be compatible with being connected to the Western Power electricity grid or with his existing system. His case was that he communicated those intended purposes to a representative of Commodore Australia…

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 Werczyk v Commodore Australia 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] WADC 35
Decision Date: 19 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Werczyk v Commodore Australia Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Mr Werczyk, who sought to recover damages from Commodore Australia Pty Ltd for selling him a defective computer system that was not fit for purpose as guaranteed under the Australian Consumer Law. Mr Werczyk had purchased the computer system in 2008 and experienced significant issues with its functionality from the outset. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which reviewed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court on appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate time at which a breach of the consumer guarantee for fitness for purpose should be assessed and whether the procedural fairness was observed in the lower court's determination of the case. Mr Werczyk argued that the breach should be assessed at the time of supply, while Commodore Australia contended that it should be assessed at the time of use. Additionally, there was contention over whether the lower court had correctly applied the principles of procedural fairness in its assessment of the evidence presented.

The Federal Court held that the breach of the consumer guarantee for fitness for purpose should be assessed at the time of supply, aligning with Mr Werczyk's argument. The court found that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and did not adequately consider the issue of procedural fairness. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that both parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases and that the court's findings are based on a comprehensive understanding of the evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing.

The court's final orders included a direction that the lower court consider the appropriate time for assessing the breach of fitness for purpose, the principles of procedural fairness, and a rehearing of the matter in light of these considerations. The case underscores the necessity for courts to carefully evaluate both the substantive and procedural aspects of consumer guarantee disputes to ensure justice is served.

Orders