Temple v AMR Motors Pty Limited [2017] NSWCATAP 221

Temple v AMR Motors Pty Limited [2017] NSWCATAP 221

The Appeal Panel refused leave and dismissed the appeal because the appellants identified no question of law, the Member correctly identified and applied the relevant Fair Trading Act provisions to the facts found, and the challenge was essentially to factual findings and evidentiary evaluation. The Member's fact-finding process was conventional, his preference for Mazda's evidence over aspects of the appellants' expert evidence was reasoned and not irrational or perverse, and the evidence did not establish that the decision was not fair and equitable, against the weight of evidence, or affected by significant new evidence so as to demonstrate a possible substantial miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in a Consumer Claim Concerning Purchase of a Mazda 3 Motor Vehicle / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing the Claim
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'merchantable Quality' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'expert Evidence' 'fact Finding']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Law' 'motor Vehicle Sale'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'merchantable Quality' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'expert Evidence' 'fact Finding']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal in a Consumer Claim Concerning Purchase of a Mazda 3 Motor Vehicle / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing the Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the grounds of appeal identified any error on a question of law in the Tribunal Member's decision." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on factual grounds because the appellants may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the Member erred in accepting Mazda's evidence and rejecting or discounting aspects of the appellants' expert evidence." 'Whether the appellants proved that the vehicle was not reasonably fit for purpose or not of merchantable quality, or that AMR Motors Pty Limited or Mazda Australia Pty Limited engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or made false representations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel refused leave and dismissed the appeal because the appellants identified no question of law, the Member correctly identified and applied the relevant Fair Trading Act provisions to the facts found, and the challenge was essentially to factual findings and evidentiary evaluation. The Member's fact-finding process was conventional, his preference for Mazda's evidence over aspects of the appellants' expert evidence was reasoned and not irrational or perverse, and the evidence did not establish that the decision was not fair and equitable, against the weight of evidence, or affected by significant new evidence so as to demonstrate a possible substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The Appeal is dismissed.' 'Reasons to be delivered.']