Nicol v Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 110

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nicol v Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 110 Hearing dates: 23 August 2021 Date of orders: 24 November 2021 Decision date: 24 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S McDonald, Senior Member Decision: The Tribunal Orders that: (1) The First Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $10,668.00 on or before 22 December 2021; and (2) The Second Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $6,278.00 on or before 22 December 2021. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW — Motor vehicle — Australian Consumer Law — Consumer guarantee — Fit for purpose — Acceptable quality — Transmission fault — Major failure – Remedies for breach - Damages Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1997 (NSW) Australian Consumer Law Cases Cited: Safi v Heartland Motors Pty Ltd t/a Heartland Chrysler [2016] NSWCATAP 80 Boyd v Agrason Pty Limited [2014] VMC 23 at [50] Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Owen Nicol (Applicant) Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd (First Respondent) CKD Automotive Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Suzuki (Second Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self represented) R Stefani (First Respondent) B Defina (Second Respondent) File Number(s): MV 21/26623 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. The Applicant, Mr Owen Nicol, purchased a new Suzuki Vitara RT‑XT Turbo Diesel 4WD Auto (vehicle) on 11 September 2017 from Scuderia Veloce Motors at Chatswood (SVM). SVM was at that time a licensed Suzuki dealer 2. The First Respondent, Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd, is the manufacturer and/or importer of the motor vehicle to Australia. 3. The Second Respondent, CKD Automotive Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Suzuki, is the Suzuki dealer at Pennant Hills who serviced the vehicle at relevant times in or after 2019. 4. The Applicant claims that the vehicle, after multiple attempts to resolve a transmission shudder, was unable to be repaired by the Respondents. 5. The Applicant seeks damages both under the Manufacturer's Warranty against the First Respondent, and against the Second Respondent for a refund for repairs that he claims failed to successfully repair the transmission fault.