Beauchamp v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 146

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Beauchamp v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 146 Hearing dates: 18 July 2022 Date of orders: 05 September 2022 Decision date: 05 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: P French, Senior Member Decision: (1) Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited must pay Gaynore Beauchamp the sum of $9,495.02 immediately. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – consumer guarantees – supply of goods – guarantee as to acceptable quality – action against manufacturer of goods – when does a cause of action accrue CONSUMER LAW – Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) – limitation period Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) – ss 3, 54, 271, 272, 273 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) – ss 28, 74, 79D, 79E, 79L, 79N Cases Cited: Barbour v Autosports Five Dock Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 141 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 51 Sacks v Hammoud [2016] NSWCATAP 225 Wilson v Winnicott [2021] NSWCATAP 211 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gaynore Beauchamp (Applicant)

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (self-represented) J Ferris (Respondent) File Number(s): MV 22/18512 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. This is an application by Gaynore Beauchamp (the applicant) for an order pursuant to s 79N(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (FT Act) that would require Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (the respondent) to pay her $9,495.02 in compensation for damage and loss she contends she has incurred due to the respondent's failure to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality in the supply of goods contained in s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) (ACL(NSW)) in the supply to her of a Toyota Yaris (the motor vehicle). This application was made to the Tribunal on 28 April 2022 (the application). 2. For reasons set out in greater detail following, the Tribunal has determined that the respondent did fail to comply with guarantee as to acceptable quality in the supply of the motor vehicle with respect to its' paintwork. The motor vehicle was supplied with a low film build of the clear coat which has resulted in the delamination of the clear coat within five years from the date of its supply. A reasonable consumer acquainted with this hidden defect in the paintwork at the time of supply would not consider it to be of acceptable quality in terms of appearance and finish, and durability, particularly having regard to the price paid for the motor vehicle and its expected period of use. The applicant is therefore entitled to take action against the respondent pursuant to s 271(1) of the ACL(NSW) to recover damages in accordance with s 272(b), which is the cost she will incur in instating an acceptable paint surface on the motor vehicle, which she has established on her evidence is $9,495.02.