Rappaport v iSelect Autos NSW Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 38

Rappaport v iSelect Autos NSW Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 38

The Appeal Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a major failure under s 260 of the Australian Consumer Law. The appellant failed to prove that the vehicle was unregistrable or suffered defects warranting a refund. The Tribunal's findings and monetary award for fixing admitted defects (seat belts, spare tyre) were appropriate. The late submission of evidence and procedural complaints did not warrant overturning the original decision, and leave to appeal was refused as there was no error of law or compelling ground.

Parties
Appellant: Luis Paul Rappaport; Respondent: iSelect Autos NSW Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; original order affirmed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Major Defects in Consumer Goods, Acceptable Quality, Onus of Proof, Late Evidence, Monetary Compensation
Consumer Law Appeals Major Defects in Consumer Goods Acceptable Quality Onus of Proof Late Evidence Monetary Compensation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luis Paul Rappaport

Appellant

iSelect Autos NSW Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a major defect in the vehicle entitling the appellant to a refund under the Australian Consumer Law
  2. 2 Whether late evidence lodged by the respondent deprived the appellant of a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that the vehicle was registrable

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a major failure under s 260 of the Australian Consumer Law. The appellant failed to prove that the vehicle was unregistrable or suffered defects warranting a refund. The Tribunal's findings and monetary award for fixing admitted defects (seat belts, spare tyre) were appropriate. The late submission of evidence and procedural complaints did not warrant overturning the original decision, and leave to appeal was refused as there was no error of law or compelling ground.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; original order affirmed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Appeal dismissed