Burkitt v Ultimate Car Rentals Australia P/L & Ors [2018] NSWDC 328

Burkitt v Ultimate Car Rentals Australia P/L & Ors [2018] NSWDC 328

The first and second defendants, by failing to effect and maintain the promised comprehensive insurance and by making misleading representations inducing the bailment, breached both contractual, tortious and statutory duties owed to the plaintiff. The third defendant, as a sub-bailee, was negligent in taking the vehicle for unauthorised purposes and causing its destruction. All were concurrent wrongdoers; proportionate liability was applied with damages apportioned accordingly.

Parties
Plaintiff: Miles Burkitt; First Defendant: Ultimate Car Rentals Australia Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Fotis Zervas; Third Defendant: Michael Amro
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants with damages and costs apportioned as per proportionate liability.
Legal Topics
Bailment, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Damages, Australian Consumer Law, Proportionate Liability
Contract Tort Consumer Law Bailment Negligence Misrepresentation Damages Australian Consumer Law +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 10 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miles Burkitt

Plaintiff

Ultimate Car Rentals Australia Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Fotis Zervas

Second Defendant

Michael Amro

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the nature and terms of the respective bailments?
  2. 2 Whether sections 18 and 238 of the Australian Consumer Law were breached by misleading or deceptive conduct?
  3. 3 Did the defendants owe and breach a duty of care to the plaintiff regarding the vehicle, and was that a cause of loss?

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second defendants, by failing to effect and maintain the promised comprehensive insurance and by making misleading representations inducing the bailment, breached both contractual, tortious and statutory duties owed to the plaintiff. The third defendant, as a sub-bailee, was negligent in taking the vehicle for unauthorised purposes and causing its destruction. All were concurrent wrongdoers; proportionate liability was applied with damages apportioned accordingly.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants with damages and costs apportioned as per proportionate liability.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants, including interest, in the sum of $183,620.94.
  • Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant, including interest, in the sum of $119,135.96.