White v Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 164

White v Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 164

The Appeal Panel found there was no denial of procedural fairness in the manner the hearing was conducted, no error in the identification of applicable legal principles, and no substantial miscarriage of justice. Mr White was not prevented from cross-examining witnesses, and the evaluation of the expert evidence by the Member was not in error. New expert reports tendered on appeal did not meet the required threshold. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Alistair White; First Respondent: Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd trading as Alto Mitsubishi; Second Respondent: Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Internal Appeal at Tribunal (appeal Panel)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Repairs, Consumer Guarantees, Due Care and Skill, Reasonable Time for Services, Tribunal Procedure, Appeal Grounds, Procedural Fairness, Cross Examination
Consumer Law Motor Vehicle Repairs Consumer Guarantees Due Care and Skill Reasonable Time for Services Tribunal Procedure Appeal Grounds Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistair White

Appellant

Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd trading as Alto Mitsubishi

First Respondent

Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Internal Appeal at Tribunal (appeal Panel)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether services provided by Alto Artarmon Pty Ltd were rendered with due care and skill
  2. 2 Whether services were provided in a reasonable time
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found there was no denial of procedural fairness in the manner the hearing was conducted, no error in the identification of applicable legal principles, and no substantial miscarriage of justice. Mr White was not prevented from cross-examining witnesses, and the evaluation of the expert evidence by the Member was not in error. New expert reports tendered on appeal did not meet the required threshold. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused
  • The appeal is dismissed