Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd v Saad [2022] NSWCATAP 133

Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd v Saad [2022] NSWCATAP 133

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons: it made no findings on the cause or timing of the sunroof seal defect and did not explain how the vehicle failed the ss 54 or 55 guarantees at the time of supply. The Tribunal also erred by applying supplier remedies under ss 259-263 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) against the appellant, which was the manufacturer rather than the supplier to the consumer, and by treating a work order as available against a manufacturer where the sole cause of action was breach of s 54. Those errors required the decision to be quashed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) From a Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Decision / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision under appeal quashed; matter remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'manufacturer Liability' 'remedies Against Manufacturers' 'work Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'limitation Period' 'remittal']
['consumer Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'manufacturer Liability' 'remedies Against Manufacturers' 'work Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'limitation Period' 'remittal']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) From a Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Decision / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for finding that the vehicle's sunroof failure was attributable to the appellant manufacturer." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in applying ss 54 and 55 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) and the remedial regime in Part 5-4.' 'Whether remedies available against suppliers under ss 259-263 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) were available against the appellant as manufacturer.' 'Whether the Tribunal had power to make a work order against a manufacturer where the sole cause of action was breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality in s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons: it made no findings on the cause or timing of the sunroof seal defect and did not explain how the vehicle failed the ss 54 or 55 guarantees at the time of supply. The Tribunal also erred by applying supplier remedies under ss 259-263 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) against the appellant, which was the manufacturer rather than the supplier to the consumer, and by treating a work order as available against a manufacturer where the sole cause of action was breach of s 54. Those errors required the decision to be quashed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision under appeal quashed; matter remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The decision under appeal is quashed.' 'The matter is remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, with leave for the parties to adduce such further evidence and join further parties as the Tribunal thinks fit.']