Jamie Coyte v Ozcorp Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 20

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jamie Coyte v Ozcorp Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 20 Hearing dates: 3 December 2014 Decision date: 28 January 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: J A Ringrose – General Member Decision: The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $38,000.00 within one month of the date of the amended orders. Catchwords: Consumer Protection – false or misleading representations – guarantee as to title Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 s 2 ; Australian Consumer Law ss. 29A, 51 and 237 Cases Cited: Given v C V Holand (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1977)29 FLR 212 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jamie Coyte (applicant) Ozcorp Group Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Parties: The applicant appeared in person There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent File Number(s): MV 14/49434 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

APPLICATION 1. By an application dated 18 September 2014 the applicant claimed a sum of $44,990.00 being the purchase price for a Toyota Land cruiser Troop Carrier bearing registration number JC3927 which was purchased from the respondent in February 2013. 2. The applicant contended that in May 2014 the Roads and Maritime Service conducted an inspection of the vehicle and discovered that the VIN Number had been tampered with, and the compliance sticker inside the passenger door had been forged. and the engine number on the engine block had been restamped. The vehicle was then seized by police and has never been returned. 3. The matter was initially listed before the Tribunal on 23 October 2014 when representatives of the respondent attended, along with the applicant in person. On that date the applicant was directed to provide the respondent and the Tribunal with a copy of all documents on which the applicant intended to rely by 27 October 2014 and the respondent was directed to provide the applicant and the Tribunal the copy of documents on which the respondent intended to rely by 28 November 2014. Both parties provided documents in accordance with the directions and the matter was listed for formal hearing on 3 December 2014. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the respondent on that date and the Tribunal was not provided with any explanation for the failure of any representative of Ozcorp to attend. The material was provided by Mr Anthony Baissari but in the absence of any communication from him as to reasons for his non-attendance the matter proceeded in his absence although the submissions provided by him were duly considered. 4. Sometime after the conclusion of the formal Hearing Mr Baissari contacted the Tribunal indicating that he had forgotten to attend and requesting that the matter be adjourned to another date so that he could attend in person and provide submissions. 5. The application made after the hearing had concluded, for an adjournment of the matter was refused on the basis that the hearing had been concluded and that it was appropriate to take into account all of the written material provided by the respondent in response to the directions. On that basis the respondent's evidence and submissions had been fully considered.