Ruddick v Rossiter [2021] NSWCATAP 87

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ruddick v Rossiter [2021] NSWCATAP 87 Hearing dates: 25 February 2021 Date of orders: 9 April 2021 Decision date: 09 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President D Robertson, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Consumer guarantees - Australian Consumer Law – scope of works: loss not established. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW) Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Grace Ruddick (Appellant) Peter Rossiter (First Respondent) Tauntons Electrics Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Kim Bolas Legal Group (Appellant) Peter Rossiter (Self-Represented) Peter Rossitor (Agent) (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00371169 (AP 20/48429) Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer & Commercial Division Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 30 October 2020 Before: J Lynch, General Member File Number(s): MV 20/25612

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The Appellant filed an application seeking an order that she be paid $3,489 as a refund for repairs conducted to the Appellant's motor vehicle. On 30 October 2020 the Tribunal dismissed the application because the Tribunal was "not satisfied (at the civil standard of proof) that the grounds required to make the orders sought have been established". The Appellant appeals against that decision (which we will refer to as the Decision). 2. In her application the Appellant set out the following as reasons for the order sought, that she be paid the amount of $3,489: "Peter Rossiter, as part of Taunton Electrics Pty Ltd agreed to give me a quote to repair and make good my Holden Astra following damage from a kangaroo accident. The vehicle had both body damage… as well as electrical problems as the vehicle would not start. I knew it was an electrical problem as I had driven my car home from the accident, some 30 kms. Thereafter the car would not start and the lights went out. I cancelled the vehicle registration and handed in the plates. I called Peter Rossiter as his company advertises as an electrical automotive company and he agreed to give me the quote for repairs and to make good the car. He also said he could get panels from the wreckers… I had the vehicle towed to his workshop in late October 2019. Peter Rossiter called me on or around 19 December 2019 and told me he could not get the car started as it needed a Holden computer to fix it, as he said, it was in Crash Mode and his computer could not do it." I complained as I thought I had been fully quoted by him, and he said take it to Gerald Slaven Motors… or another Holden expert and it would only cost me around $100". 1. The balance of the application states that the Appellant paid Mr Rossiter, and took the vehicle to Gerald Slaven Motors who gave her a quote, to repair the vehicle for registration, totalling $4,782.42. The Appellant alleged that Mr Rossiter had "misquoted me and underquoted for the job" and that "Had [Mr Rossiter] given me a full quote for repairs to reregister the vehicle I would not have told him to proceed with his underquote". 2. Although the application identifies the nature of the dispute as "overcharging", in particulars provided by the Appellant on 1 September 2020, the Appellant contended that there was a breach of consumer guarantees (under the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)) in that the service provided by the Respondents was performed without acceptable care and skill and/or was not fit for purpose. There was also an allegation that the service was not provided within reasonable time. 3. The amount sought by the Appellant represented the amount of the invoice issued by the Respondents and paid by the Appellant's mother, Ms Bolas, on the Appellant's behalf. 4. The Appellant named in her application both Mr Rossiter, and Tauntons Auto Electrics Pty Ltd. At a directions hearing in relation to the appeal, the name of the Second Respondent was corrected to Tauntons Electrics Pty Ltd. Mr Rossiter is a director of Tauntons Electrics Pty Ltd. 5. The application was heard by phone on 22 October 2020 and the Decision was delivered on 30 October 2020. The Decision briefly described the documents filed by the parties and recorded that oral evidence was given by the Appellant and Ms Bolas, and also by Mr Rossiter. 6. In the Decision the Tribunal summarised the evidence given by the parties in the following terms: 8. The applicant owned a Holden Astra motor vehicle. Ms Ruddick gave evidence that on 5 August 2019 she collided with a kangaroo on the road at Lake George. She drove the vehicle 30km home. 9. Her mother arranged to take the vehicle to the respondent in late October 2019 to obtain a quote. 10. The consumer was provided an oral quote which was communicated to her mother Ms Kim Bolas by Mr Rossiter and then from Ms Bolas to the applicant. The quote was accepted and work undertaken. 11. An invoice for $3489 dated 9 December 2019 was provided to the Tribunal as evidence of the work done on the vehicle by the respondent. 12. The applicant Grace Ruddick ("the consumer") claims she contracted with the respondents Peter Rossiter and Tauntons Auto Electrics Pty Ltd ("the trader") for work on her 2005 Holden Astra motor vehicle. The consumer seeks a refund of $3489 which she paid for the work. It is agreed this sum was paid. 1. The Tribunal summarised the Respondent's evidence as follows: 16. When the applicant brought in the vehicle he rang around to obtain parts quotes and on the basis of this provided an oral quote to Ms Bolas on behalf of the applicant. He states the quote was for damage by kangaroo and reason for not starting. 17. He did the work on the applicant's motor vehicle that is set out in his invoice dated 9 December 2019.