Patrizi t/as Patrizi Motor Repairs v Garstang [2016] NSWCATAP 114

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Patrizi t/as Patrizi Motor Repairs v Garstang [2016] NSWCATAP 114 Hearing dates: 15 April 2016 Date of orders: 23 May 2016 Decision date: 23 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: P Durack SC, Senior Member Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: 1. Appeal allowed in part. 2. The decision of the Tribunal below is set aside. 3. In lieu of that decision, order the Appellant to pay the Respondent the sum of $461.29 within 14 days. 4. Leave to appeal is refused. Catchwords: APPEAL – damage to car during bailment for repairs – adequacy of reasons – reasons adequate in view of size and complexity of claim. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: Hernady v Raccani [2016] NSWCATAP 67 Texts Cited: Halsbury, Laws of Australia Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tommaso Patrizi t/as Patrizi Motor Repairs (Appellant) Jean Garstang (Respondent) Representation: Both parties were unrepresented File Number(s): AP 15/65987 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 17 November 2015 Before: A Morris, Member File Number(s): MV 15/47285

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview 1. In April 2015, Ms Garstang, the Respondent on the appeal, delivered her Alfa Romeo 2000 Spider to Mr Patrizi, the Appellant, at his home in Lilli Pilli for him to carry out some repairs to the vehicle. For nearly 40 years, Mr Patrizi had carried on the business of Patrizi Motor Repairs in Carlton, Sydney. Ms Garstang had been a customer of that business. Ms Garstang continued to use Mr Patrizi for repair work after he retired from this business and moved to Lilli Pilli, near Batemans Bay. Both Ms Garstang and Mr Patrizi were members of the Alfa Romeo Owners Club of New South Wales. 2. In the Tribunal below, Ms Garstang succeeded on her claim that the car had suffered some damage whilst in Mr Patrizi's care for the purpose of repair work. Mr Patrizi was ordered to pay Ms Garstang the sum of $661.29 immediately. Included in that sum was the sum of $200.00 covering the filing fee for Ms Garstang's application in the Tribunal below. That sum should not have been awarded in Ms Garstang's favour because the rule is that each party must bear their own costs of Tribunal proceedings concerning this size of claim unless special circumstances warrant a costs order: see s60 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act) and also Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014. The Tribunal gave no indication that it considered that special circumstances warranted an award of costs. Accordingly, that error must be corrected. 3. Mr Patrizi appeals against the whole of the amount that he was ordered to pay. His contentions include that there was no evidence to establish his liability and that the Tribunal below did not adequately explain why he was found to be responsible for the damage. 4. For the reasons set out below, whilst the reasons of the Tribunal are open to criticism, we do not uphold Mr Patrizi's submissions. In our opinion, the appeal should be dismissed, save as to the error about the filing fee.