Vergios v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 286

Vergios v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 286

The appellant failed to establish any error of law or any basis for leave to appeal. The Tribunal considered the relevant evidence, gave logical and coherent reasons for preferring Mr Senz's expert evidence that the turbocharger damage was caused by ingress of foreign material rather than a manufacturing defect or inadequate repairs, did not fail to consider the history of defects and repairs, and did not apply an incorrect causation test. The evidence did not preponderate so strongly against the Tribunal's conclusion that it could be said no reasonable Tribunal Member could reach it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Dismissing a Consumer Claim Concerning Alleged Breach of Consumer Guarantees Under the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (nsw) / Appeal Panel; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'motor Vehicle Defects' 'causation' 'weight of Evidence' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['consumer Law' 'civil and Administrative Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'motor Vehicle Defects' 'causation' 'weight of Evidence' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Dismissing a Consumer Claim Concerning Alleged Breach of Consumer Guarantees Under the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (nsw) / Appeal Panel; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's history of defects and repairs to the vehicle." 'Whether the Tribunal applied the incorrect legal test for causation in determining the cause of the turbocharger failure.' 'Whether the appellant established breach of the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality under s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish any error of law or any basis for leave to appeal. The Tribunal considered the relevant evidence, gave logical and coherent reasons for preferring Mr Senz's expert evidence that the turbocharger damage was caused by ingress of foreign material rather than a manufacturing defect or inadequate repairs, did not fail to consider the history of defects and repairs, and did not apply an incorrect causation test. The evidence did not preponderate so strongly against the Tribunal's conclusion that it could be said no reasonable Tribunal Member could reach it.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'No order as to costs']