Ulmer v Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 179

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ulmer v Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 179 Hearing dates: 28 June 2022 Date of orders: 15 September 2022 Decision date: 15 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Moujalli, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $8,400 immediately. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Australian consumer law – consumer guarantee that product must be of acceptable quality – claim against manufacturer – assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 313 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Manly Council v Byrne and Anor [2004] NSWCA 123 Vautin v By Winddown, Inc (formerly Bertram Yachts)(No 4) [2018] FCA 426; (2018) 362 ALR 702 Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Initial Trial) [2022] FCA 344 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Ulmer (Applicant)

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

Respondent: Ms E O'Connor (manager) File Number(s): MV 22/11736 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. On 17 March 2022 the applicant, Peter Ulmer, lodged an application with the Tribunal (the Application). The Application seeks the payment of money for repairs carried out to the applicant's motor vehicle (the Vehicle). The applicant's claim is based on breach of the consumer guarantee contained in section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). 2. By order of the Tribunal made on 7 April 2022, Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd was named as the respondent to the Application. There is no dispute between the parties that the respondent is the manufacturer of the Vehicle. 3. At the hearing on 28 June 2022, the applicant represented himself and Ms O'Conner (being a manager of the respondent) represented the respondent. The hearing proceeded by telephone. At the hearing each party was given an opportunity to present their evidence, ask questions of the other party and make submissions. Both Mr Ulmer and Ms O'Conner did this in a respectful manner and the Tribunal is grateful for their co-operation in the conduct of the hearing.