Damanios v Stateroads Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 108

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Damanios v Stateroads Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 108 Hearing dates: 30 July 2015 Decision date: 22 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G J Sarginson General Member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed. Catchwords: Due care and skill Misleading or deceptive conduct Legislation Cited: Consumer Claims Act 1998 ss3, 3A and 7 Fair Trading Act 1987 s 28 Australian Consumer Law 2010 ss3,18 and 60 Cases Cited: Mayne Nickless Ltd v Crawford (1992) 59 SASR 490 Read v Nerey Nominees Pty Ltd [1979] VR 47 at 49 Clark v Macourt (2013) 304 ALR 220 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 Chand v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] NSWCA 181 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 Perpetual Trustee Company Limited & Anor v Ishak [2012] NSWSC 697 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145 Category: Principal judgment Parties: James Tsampikos Damianos (applicant) Stateroads Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Applicant: In person Respondent: Mr S. Cook, Operations Manager File Number(s): GEN 15/27879 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The dispute involves a roadworthy report on a 2006 model 320i BMW that the applicant purchased from a private vendor in February 2015. The respondent performs mechanical inspections of vehicles. Prior to purchase of the vehicle, the applicant contracted with the respondent to perform a pre-inspection report. The applicant asserts that the pre inspection report did not reveal a bent right hand front suspension strut on the vehicle, and that such a defect should have reasonably been disclosed. 2. The applicant filed proceedings on 13 April 2015 seeking compensation of $2,162.43 for the cost of repairing the vehicle. The matter was before the Tribunal on 27 May 2015, when it was set down for hearing and orders made in respect of each party filing and serving evidence. The respondent was granted leave to appear by telephone as the respondent is based in Queensland. 3. At the hearing on 30 July 2015, the applicant appeared and gave sworn evidence. Mr Cook, operations manager of the respondent who was not the person who had performed the vehicle inspection but had dealt with the applicant's complaints, appeared by telephone and gave sworn evidence.