Zahra v Hockley - [2025] NSWDC 69

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Zahra v Hockley [2025] NSWDC 69
Hearing dates: 25 – 27 September 2024
Date of orders: 19 March 2025
Decision date: 19 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Catsanos SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. I direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order in respect of the judgment sum and costs in accordance with these reasons within seven days.
(2) In the event of an application for a different costs order to that which I have proposed, or if there are otherwise any issues as to the terms of the Short Minutes of Order, the matter is to be relisted by arrangement with my Associate.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS – sale of motor vehicle – vehicle not as described – whether breach of express term of contract – s 18 Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) – whether sale by description – whether breach of implied condition that goods will correspond with description

Legislation Cited:
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 18

Cases Cited:
Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193; [1967] 3 All ER 253
Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd v McBride and Anor [1976] 2 NSWLR 631
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; [2009] NSWCA 407
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52
Walker v Sell (2016) FCR 308; [2016] FCA 1259

Texts Cited:
JD Heydon, Heydon on Contract (2019, Thomson Reuters)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: David Zahra (Plaintiff)
Michael Hockley (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Trebeck (Plaintiff)
Mr S Duggan (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Harris & Company Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Accolade Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00353503
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Background

In late 2021 or early 2022, the plaintiff decided to buy himself a Ford Falcon GT motor vehicle from the early 1970s.
To that end, the plaintiff started searching through various online sites and, on 25 January 2022, he came across an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace for a vehicle which was identified as a Ford Falcon XY GT. [1] This piqued the plaintiff’s interest, describing in his evidence before me how he had dreamed of owning a genuine Ford Falcon GT since he was a teenager.
1. The designation “XY” relates to the model and year of manufacture.
The vehicle which the plaintiff saw advertised was owned by the defendant. The asking price was $220,000.
The plaintiff contacted the defendant. They met soon afterwards at a service station suggested by the defendant where the plaintiff, along with a friend, inspected the vehicle, following which the plaintiff agreed to buy the vehicle for $195,000, being a price consistent with the value of a genuine Ford XY GT at that time.
The money was paid promptly, and the plaintiff was seemingly content in the belief that he had acquired a genuine example of his dream car.
The plaintiff had some health problems and, as a result, in about…

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.

Continue reading Zahra v Hockley

Details

AGLC: Zahra v Hockley [2025] NSWDC 69
Case: [2025] NSWDC 69
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zahra v Hockley involved a dispute over the sale of a motor vehicle. The plaintiff, Ms Zahra, sought to recover damages from the defendant, Mr Hockley, for the sale of a motor vehicle that was not as described in the contract of sale. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether there had been a breach of an express term of the contract, and if so, whether the sale was by description and whether there was a breach of an implied condition that the goods would correspond with the description.

The court found that the vehicle sold to Ms Zahra was not as described in the contract. The description of the vehicle in the contract included the year of manufacture, the number of kilometres on the odometer, and the condition of the vehicle. The court found that the vehicle was not as described, as it had more kilometres on the odometer than stated in the contract and was not in the same condition as described. The court held that the sale was by description and that there was an implied condition that the goods would correspond with the description. The court found that this condition had been breached, and that Mr Hockley was liable for damages.

The court awarded judgment in favour of Ms Zahra and ordered that the parties bring in Short Minutes of Order in respect of the judgment sum and costs within seven days. The court also noted that if there were any issues as to the terms of the Short Minutes of Order, the matter would be relisted by arrangement with the court's Associate. The court did not provide a specific amount for the damages, leaving it to the parties to negotiate and finalise the amount to be paid. Overall, the court found that Mr Hockley was liable for breach of an implied condition in the sale of the motor vehicle to Ms Zahra.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. I direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order in respect of the judgment sum and costs in accordance with these reasons within seven days.

(2) In the event of an application for a different costs order to that which I have proposed, or if there are otherwise any issues as to the terms of the Short Minutes of Order, the matter is to be relisted by arrangement with my Associate.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Zahra v Hockley [2025] NSWDC 69
Hearing dates:	25 – 27 September 2024
Date of orders:	19 March 2025
Decision date:	19 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Catsanos SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. I direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order in respect of the judgment sum and costs in accordance with these reasons within seven days. (2) In the event of an application for a different costs order to that which I have proposed, or if there are otherwise any issues as to the terms of the Short Minutes of Order, the matter is to be relisted by arrangement with my Associate.
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS – sale of motor vehicle – vehicle not as described – whether breach of express term of contract – s 18 Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) – whether sale by description – whether breach of implied condition that goods will correspond with description
Legislation Cited:	Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 18
Cases Cited:	Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193; [1967] 3 All ER 253 Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd v McBride and Anor [1976] 2 NSWLR 631 Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; [2009] NSWCA 407 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52 Walker v Sell (2016) FCR 308; [2016] FCA 1259
Texts Cited:	JD Heydon, Heydon on Contract (2019, Thomson Reuters)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	David Zahra (Plaintiff) Michael Hockley (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Trebeck (Plaintiff) Mr S Duggan (Defendant) Solicitors: Harris & Company Solicitors (Plaintiff) Accolade Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2023/00353503
Publication restriction:	Nil