NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan Connor v Teela Enterprises Pty Limited and Robyn May Stevenson t/as Sureflo Exhaust [2014] NSWCATCD 93 Hearing dates: 5 May 2014 Decision date: 03 June 2014 Before: G J Sarginson, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: Motor vehicle modifications, Acceptable quality Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law 2010 Fair Trading Act 1987 Consumer Claims Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Low v Mack Trucks Australia Pty Ltd HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/439.html" \o "View Case" [2008] FCA 439 Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/128.html" \o "View Case" [2011] FCAFC 128) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ryan Connor (applicant) Teela Enterprises Pty Limited and Robyn May Stevenson t/as Sureflo Exhaust (respondent) File Number(s): GEN 14/05278
reasons for decision
BACKGROUND 1The application in this matter was filed on 29 January 2014. The applicant seeks an order for a full refund of an aftermarket exhaust system he purchased from the respondent on 24 November 2012 for his VE (Series 2) SS Commodore utility. The cost of the exhaust system was $1,500.00. The exhaust system was purchased from, and installed by, the respondent. The applicant also seeks compensation for a repair fee of $50.00 he incurred in respect of the vehicle, and an order that the respondent supply him with "an original, undamaged and unaltered brace". 2The proceedings were listed before the Tribunal on 17 March 2014, when orders were made that the parties file and serve evidence, and the matter listed for hearing on 5 May 2014. 3The Tribunal had caused a business name search with NSW Fair Trading to be performed on Sureflo Exhausts. That search revealed the correct legal entity is Teela Enterprises Pty Limited and Robyn May Stevenson t/as Sureflo Exhausts. Accordingly, the name of the respondent is amended to reflect its correct legal entity. 4On 5 May 2014, the Tribunal, in accordance with its statutory obligations, explored conciliation with the parties. The matter was unable to be resolved, and proceeded to hearing. 5The applicant and Mr Greg Stevenson, the manager of the respondent, gave sworn evidence. Each party cross examined the other party and made submissions. Each party relied on documents which had been filed and served.
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