NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Panico v Mollier Enterprises Pty Limited t/a JC Diesel Tune [2021] NSWCATCD 56 Hearing dates: 21 December 2020 Date of orders: 12 January 2021 Decision date: 12 January 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: P Thew, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW — Motor vehicle — Due care and skill — Fitness for a particular purpose Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jerry Panico (Applicant) Mollier Enterprises Pty Limited t/a JC Diesel Tune (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented) Respondent (Self-represented) File Number(s): MV20/35149 Publication restriction: None
REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 18 August 2020 the Tribunal received an application made by Jerry Panico against Andrew Blackmore (expressed in the application as Andy/Andrew Blackmore) in which Mr Panico sought an order for compensation in the sum of $2,914.24 said to be by way of reimbursement for repairs. At the hearing on 21 December 2020, Mr Panico stated that he relied upon sections 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), at Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). 2. Also at the hearing on 21 December 2020, it became apparent that the respondent had been improperly named and was in fact Mollier Enterprises Pty Limited t/a JC Diesel Tune, in line with the ASIC business name extract on the Tribunal's file provided to the Tribunal by Mr Panico by email dated 18 August 2020. At the hearing on 21 December 2020 Mr Blackmore gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepted, that he was the director of Mollier Enterprises Pty Limited. Mr Panico did not dispute this. The Tribunal made orders on 21 December 2020 (the issue of which was delayed for technical reasons until 25 December 2020) that the respondent's name be amended from Andy/Andrew Blackmore to Mollier Enterprises Pty Limited t/a JC Diesel Tune. 3. At the hearing on 21 December 2020 the applicant was self-represented and the respondent was represented by Mr Blackmore. At the hearing both parties were given an opportunity to present their evidence, test the other party's evidence and make submissions.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate