Parkinson v Hutchin [2023] NSWCATCD 17

Parkinson v Hutchin [2023] NSWCATCD 17

The new camper, purchased for $58,000, developed numerous defects shortly after supply, including issues with the hot water system, fridge/freezer, water ingress, dust ingress, awning and seals. Preferring the applicant's expert evidence, the Tribunal found the camper was not fit for common purposes, not free from defects and not durable, amounting to breaches of s 54(2)(a), (c) and (e) of the ACL at the time of supply. The cumulative defects, repeated unsuccessful repairs and continuing dust ingress meant a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the failures would not have acquired the camper, so the failure was major. The applicant rejected the camper within the rejection period and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Purchase of a Caravan Camper / Principal Judgment; Orders Amended Pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Outcome
Application allowed in part. Refund and return orders made; manufacturer ordered to indemnify supplier; claims for damages, costs and misleading or deceptive conduct dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'rejection of Goods' 'rejection Period' 'manufacturer Indemnity' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defective Goods']
['consumer Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'rejection of Goods' 'rejection Period' 'manufacturer Indemnity' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defective Goods']

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

Consumer Claim Concerning Purchase of a Caravan Camper / Principal Judgment; Orders Amended Pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the first respondent fail to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality in supplying the camper to the applicant?' 'If there was a failure to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality, was it a major failure?' 'Was the applicant entitled to reject the camper within the rejection period?' 'Did the first respondent or second respondent engage in misleading or deceptive conduct?' 'What remedy was the applicant entitled to?' 'What orders were necessary to do justice between the parties?' 'What action did the applicant have against the second respondent?']

Ratio Decidendi

The new camper, purchased for $58,000, developed numerous defects shortly after supply, including issues with the hot water system, fridge/freezer, water ingress, dust ingress, awning and seals. Preferring the applicant's expert evidence, the Tribunal found the camper was not fit for common purposes, not free from defects and not durable, amounting to breaches of s 54(2)(a), (c) and (e) of the ACL at the time of supply. The cumulative defects, repeated unsuccessful repairs and continuing dust ingress meant a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the failures would not have acquired the camper, so the failure was major. The applicant rejected the camper within the rejection period and...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part. Refund and return orders made; manufacturer ordered to indemnify supplier; claims for damages, costs and misleading or deceptive conduct dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Adrian James Hutchin t/as Jimbo's 4X4 Campers must immediately accept Andrew Parkinson's return of CX3 star vision hybrid caravan camper NSW registration number TK74DV via Star Vision Pty Ltd." "Adrian James Hutchin t/as Jimbo's 4X4 Campers must pay Andrew Parkinson the sum of $58,000 on or before 27 February...