Zhang v Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd & Ors

The appeal in *Zhang v Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd & Ors* concerned a dispute arising from the use of commercial van tyres with a load-carrying capacity below the manufacturer's specifications. The central question was whether the issuer of a safety inspection certificate had breached its duty of care by failing to identify this defect, and whether this constituted a misleading or deceptive representation under the *Fair Trading Act 1987* (NSW).

The New South Wales Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the issuer of the safety inspection certificate owed a duty of care to the owner of the van, and if so, whether that duty was breached by failing to identify that the tyres fitted to the van had a load-carrying capacity below the manufacturer's specifications. The court also considered whether the issuing of the certificate constituted a representation that the vehicle was roadworthy in all relevant respects, and if such a representation was made, whether it was limited to the owner and temporally restricted. Furthermore, the assessment of damages, including life expectancy, the application of provisions relating to the most extreme case, and the impact of amounts paid under section 45 of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW) and contributory negligence, were also at issue.

The Court of Appeal found that while the issuer of the safety inspection certificate did owe a duty of care, the scope of that duty did not extend to identifying defects in the tyres that were not apparent upon a visual inspection and did not involve a detailed examination of the vehicle's specifications. The court held that the issuing of a safety inspection certificate did not constitute a representation that the vehicle was roadworthy in all respects, but rather that it met the minimum standards for roadworthiness at the time of inspection. The court also addressed the assessment of damages, recalculating future loss based on a specific multiplier for life expectancy and reducing the awarded damages by 30% for contributory negligence, while excluding expenses already paid by the insurer.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the judgment in the District Court being set aside and varied. Judgment was entered for the amount assessed by the trial judge, subject to recalculation of future loss and a reduction for contributory negligence, excluding expenses paid under section 45 of the *Motor Accidents Act*. The cross-appeal was dismissed, and costs were allocated between the parties, with the Appellant ordered to pay the Third Respondents' costs of the appeal and the First and Second Respondents ordered to pay the Appellant's costs of the cross-appeal and certain costs of the appeal.