Mr Car Proprietary Ltd v Archer [2019] NSWCATAP 275

Mr Car Proprietary Ltd v Archer [2019] NSWCATAP 275

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appeal raised alleged factual errors only, the appellant did not show any substantial miscarriage of justice, and the Tribunal's finding that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality was supported by the mechanics' reports and was not displaced by the RMS inspection report, the Form 5 notice, the vehicle's age, or the asserted use by the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before NCAT Appeal Panel
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sale of Second Hand Motor Vehicle' 'consumer Guarantee of Acceptable Quality' 'dealer Warranty or Guarantee' 'leave to Appeal' 'alleged Error of Fact']
['consumer Law' 'motor Dealers and Repairers' 'administrative Law'] ['sale of Second Hand Motor Vehicle' 'consumer Guarantee of Acceptable Quality' 'dealer Warranty or Guarantee' 'leave to Appeal' 'alleged Error of Fact']

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

Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before NCAT Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the appeal alleged errors of fact rather than any question of law.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the second hand vehicle was not of acceptable quality at the time of purchase.' "Whether the absence of a dealer's warranty or statutory dealer's guarantee displaced liability for breach of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) consumer guarantee of acceptable quality." "Whether the RMS Inspection report and mechanics' reports showed an appellable error in the Tribunal's findings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appeal raised alleged factual errors only, the appellant did not show any substantial miscarriage of justice, and the Tribunal's finding that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality was supported by the mechanics' reports and was not displaced by the RMS inspection report, the Form 5 notice, the vehicle's age, or the asserted use by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.']