Jackson v Honda Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 37

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jackson v Honda Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 37 Hearing dates: 7 February 2022 Date of orders: 24 March 2022 Decision date: 24 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K George, General Member Decision: The respondent is to pay to the applicants the sum of $8,098.45 within 14 days of the date of this decision. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW — Consumer guarantees — Action against manufacturer Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mark and Nicole Jackson (Applicant)

Honda Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)

Consumer Resolution Advocate (Respondent) File Number(s): MV 21/46246 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The applicants purchased a new motor vehicle, a Honda HRV, from Tynan Motors Honda on 31 July 2015. Because Tynan Motors Honda is no longer a Honda dealer, the applicants decided to bring this claim against the manufacturer. 2. By application to the Tribunal dated 10 November 2021, the applicants claim the amount of $12,500.00, being the estimated costs of repair to the vehicle. 3. They claim that there is 'excessive corrosion onset in [the] majority of the vehicle' and that the respondent has failed to comply with the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality under section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL') because the vehicle: 1. is not fit for purpose; and 2. is not free from defects. 1. The respondent agrees that the vehicle is damaged by corrosion, but argues that the vehicle is of acceptable quality because the rust spots are minor and repairable, and the corrosion was caused by a combination of the corrosive coastal environment in which the vehicle was located and insufficient maintenance of the vehicle by the applicants. 2. The warranty for body/paint corrosion expired on 5 August 2021. 3. Nevertheless, the respondent has offered to repair the vehicle at its own expense. 4. However, this is rejected by the applicants because they say it would require extensive dismantling of the vehicle, thus, they submit, compromising its integrity, safety and value. 5. The applicants wish to undertake the repairs themselves and apply extra rust protection which the respondent has declined.