National Consumer Commission v Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services (NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 55 (22 July 2018)

National Consumer Commission v Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services (NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 55 (22 July 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent, while in possession of Mr Sibiya's vehicle, failed to exercise the required degree of care, diligence, and skill, resulting in the engine seizing and the vehicle being left unrepaired for approximately three years. The Respondent did not provide any evidence or explanation for the events, nor did it comply with undertakings to submit its version or supporting documents. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent contravened section 65(2)(b) of the CPA, constituting prohibited conduct. Given the seriousness of the contravention and the Respondent's conduct, the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine, suspended for 90 days on condition that the...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 55
Parties
Applicant: National Consumer Commission; Respondent: Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2018
Case Number
NCT/101932/2018/73(2)(b)
Procedural Posture
Default Application / Judgment After Default Hearing
Outcome
The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of prohibited conduct under section 65(2)(b) of the CPA and imposed a conditional administrative fine and restitution orders.
Judges
T Woker, A Potwana, P Beck
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Prohibited Conduct, Administrative Fine, Supplier Liability, Implied Warranty of Quality
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Prohibited Conduct Administrative Fine Supplier Liability Implied Warranty of Quality

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Consumer Commission

Applicant

Highends Trading and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Highends Auto Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Application / Judgment After Default Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent contravened section 65(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by failing to exercise reasonable care over the consumer's property.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent is liable to restore the consumer's vehicle to good working order or refund amounts received for repairs.
  3. 3 Whether an administrative fine is appropriate under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent, while in possession of Mr Sibiya's vehicle, failed to exercise the required degree of care, diligence, and skill, resulting in the engine seizing and the vehicle being left unrepaired for approximately three years. The Respondent did not provide any evidence or explanation for the events, nor did it comply with undertakings to submit its version or supporting documents. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent contravened section 65(2)(b) of the CPA, constituting prohibited conduct. Given the seriousness of the contravention and the Respondent's conduct, the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine, suspended for 90 days on condition that the...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of prohibited conduct under section 65(2)(b) of the CPA and imposed a conditional administrative fine and restitution orders.

Orders

  • The Respondent must repair Mr Sibiya's motor vehicle to good working order and free of defects within 90 days, with assessment by the AA at the Respondent's cost.
  • If the Respondent fails to repair the vehicle within 90 days, it must pay an administrative fine of R150,000 into the National Revenue Fund within 120 days and refund R6,499 received from Innovation to Mr Sibiya.