Nicol v Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 110

Nicol v Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 110

The Tribunal determined the persistent transmission defect constituted a major failure for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law, and that neither respondent remedied the defect within a reasonable time. The First Respondent was liable for damages, and the Second Respondent for the cost of unsuccessful repairs, as supported by expert evidence and the applicant's mitigation efforts.

Parties
Applicant: Owen Nicol; First Respondent: Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: CKD Automotive Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Suzuki
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Consumer Dispute / Final Determination
Outcome
Applicant's claim upheld. Orders for payment and refund made against respondents.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle, Australian Consumer Law, Consumer Guarantee, Fit for Purpose, Acceptable Quality, Transmission Fault, Major Failure, Remedies for Breach, Damages
Consumer Law Motor Vehicle Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantee Fit for Purpose Acceptable Quality Transmission Fault Major Failure +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen Nicol

Applicant

Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

CKD Automotive Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Suzuki

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Dispute / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle failed to comply with the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law
  2. 2 Whether the transmission issue constituted a major failure under s.260 of the ACL
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were liable for damages and refunds as a result of breach

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined the persistent transmission defect constituted a major failure for the purposes of the Australian Consumer Law, and that neither respondent remedied the defect within a reasonable time. The First Respondent was liable for damages, and the Second Respondent for the cost of unsuccessful repairs, as supported by expert evidence and the applicant's mitigation efforts.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim upheld. Orders for payment and refund made against respondents.

Orders

  • The First Respondent must pay the Applicant $10,668.00 on or before 22 December 2021.
  • The Second Respondent must pay the Applicant $6,278.00 on or before 22 December 2021.