GM Holden Ltd v Scicluna Facade Design Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 292

GM Holden Ltd v Scicluna Facade Design Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 292

The Appeal Panel held that the stated grounds did not disclose an error of law and, insofar as they challenged factual findings or weight given to evidence, did not justify leave to appeal. It was open to the Tribunal on the evidence to find that the intermittent self-locking problem was a defect, that it was important, intractable and difficult to fix, and that it constituted a major failure justifying rejection of the vehicle. The absence of expert evidence did not defeat the claim because the Tribunal could be satisfied on the civil standard by the evidence before it. None of the evidentiary matters relied on by the appellants showed a substantial miscarriage of justice or a basis for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Motor Vehicle Consumer Claim Decision / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; stay revoked; costs submissions timetable made.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'motor Vehicle Defects' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'weight of Evidence' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'australian Consumer Law' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'motor Vehicle Defects' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'weight of Evidence' '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

Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Motor Vehicle Consumer Claim Decision / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal made an error of law in finding that the vehicle's self-locking issue was a defect and a major failure under the Australian Consumer Law." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the decision was against the weight of the evidence or involved a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the absence of expert evidence meant the respondent's claim before the Tribunal could not succeed." "Whether the Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to the CRUZE Owner's Handbook, Holden's 29 March 2018 letter, Road Rules 2014 (NSW) r 213, disabling of autolock, and the 26 May 2016 service invoice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the stated grounds did not disclose an error of law and, insofar as they challenged factual findings or weight given to evidence, did not justify leave to appeal. It was open to the Tribunal on the evidence to find that the intermittent self-locking problem was a defect, that it was important, intractable and difficult to fix, and that it constituted a major failure justifying rejection of the vehicle. The absence of expert evidence did not defeat the claim because the Tribunal could be satisfied on the civil standard by the evidence before it. None of the evidentiary matters relied on by the appellants showed a substantial miscarriage of justice or a basis for...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; stay revoked; costs submissions timetable made.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal refused.' 'Stay of 9 October 2018 revoked.' 'Appellants to file any submissions on costs on or before 10 December 2019.' 'Each party may respond on or before 17 December 2019.']