Jaynick Pty Ltd v Farrawell [2020] NSWCATAP 55

Jaynick Pty Ltd v Farrawell [2020] NSWCATAP 55

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not establish a question of law or a basis for leave to appeal. The Tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence that oil was added to the fuel and Mr Perry's expert opinion that the motor failed because a failed lower main bearing discharged metal fragments into the damaged cylinder area. The appellant's factual challenges were not made out, in part because it did not provide the sound recording of the hearing below. Although the Tribunal erred in finding the carburettor was defective, that error did not affect the ultimate conclusion that the motor was not of acceptable quality and not reasonably fit for purpose under the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Consumer Law Appeal Concerning Consumer Guarantees for a Secondhand Marine Outboard Motor / Appeal Panel Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 01 November 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'fitness for Purpose' 'questions of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'weight of Evidence']
['consumer Law' 'civil Appeals'] ['australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'fitness for Purpose' 'questions of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'weight of Evidence']

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 Law Appeal Concerning Consumer Guarantees for a Secondhand Marine Outboard Motor / Appeal Panel Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 01 November 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the motor was not of acceptable quality within s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law and not reasonably fit for purpose within s 56 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the cause of the motor seizing was a failed lower main bearing discharging metal fragments into the damaged cylinder area rather than failure to add oil to the fuel.' 'Whether the appellant identified a question of law or a ground justifying leave to appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division decision.' "Whether the Tribunal's erroneous finding that the carburettor was defective affected the ultimate result."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not establish a question of law or a basis for leave to appeal. The Tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence that oil was added to the fuel and Mr Perry's expert opinion that the motor failed because a failed lower main bearing discharged metal fragments into the damaged cylinder area. The appellant's factual challenges were not made out, in part because it did not provide the sound recording of the hearing below. Although the Tribunal erred in finding the carburettor was defective, that error did not affect the ultimate conclusion that the motor was not of acceptable quality and not reasonably fit for purpose under the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']