Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 55

Bates v Craig Wrightson Automotive Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 55

The applicant did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the repairs quoted by All Haul were necessary because the respondent failed to carry out its work with due care and skill or because the engine was not fit for purpose. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the engine casing crack was present when the respondent installed the engine or caused by that installation, that the glued crank angle sensor showed a failure to exercise due care and skill, or that the respondent caused the gearbox fault, given the respondent did not remove or work on the gearbox and wear and tear remained a possible cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Motor Vehicle Repair Services and Consumer Guarantees / Final Decision
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'supply of Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'motor Vehicle Repairs' 'second Hand Engine Installation']
['consumer Law' 'motor Vehicles'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'supply of Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'motor Vehicle Repairs' 'second Hand Engine Installation']

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

Consumer Claim Concerning Motor Vehicle Repair Services and Consumer Guarantees / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent supplied motor vehicle repair services with due care and skill under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' "Whether the engine repairs claimed by the applicant were necessary because of the respondent's work or because the engine was not fit for purpose." "Whether the gearbox repairs claimed by the applicant were caused by the respondent's installation of the engine, clutch or flywheel assembly."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the repairs quoted by All Haul were necessary because the respondent failed to carry out its work with due care and skill or because the engine was not fit for purpose. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the engine casing crack was present when the respondent installed the engine or caused by that installation, that the glued crank angle sensor showed a failure to exercise due care and skill, or that the respondent caused the gearbox fault, given the respondent did not remove or work on the gearbox and wear and tear remained a possible cause.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']