Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fardoulis v Sony Australia Limited [2017] NSWCATAP 72 Hearing dates: 13 February 2017 Date of orders: 31 March 2017 Decision date: 31 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: M Harrowell, Principal Member L Pearson, Principal Member Decision: 1. To the extent necessary, leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The order made 24 October 2016 to dismiss the application is set aside and in lieu thereof the following orders are made: (a) Within 30 days from the date of these orders, respondent is to carry out, at its cost, the repairs to Sony camera model ACLE-7RM2 serial number 4478990 set out in the quotation from Digicam No 119071 dated 23 August 2016 (Quotation) and thereafter test the camera and ensure it operates correctly; (b) Following the carrying out of repairs in accordance with order (a), the camera is to be collected by the appellant from the office of the respondent at North Sydney. Catchwords: Adequacy of reasons- rejection of physical evidence of state of goods when returned following repair, finding implicitly rejecting evidence of witness, evaluation of relevant evidence. Leave to appeal- decision not fair and equitable or against the weight of evidence. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jason Fardoulis (Appellant) Sony Australia Limited (Respondent) Representation: Solicitor: In Person (Appellant) M Blair (employee for the Respondent) File Number(s): AP 16/50427 Publication restriction: Unrestricted Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 24 October 2016 Before: D Charles, Senior Member File Number(s): GEN 16/35494 reasons for decision Introduction 1. The appellant is a consumer who purchased a Sony camera model ILCE-7RM2 in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates on 16 November 2015. He also purchased various accessories for that camera, including lenses. 2. The camera, excluding accessories, apparently had a recommended retail price of $4499.00. However, the exact price paid by the appellant is unclear from the documents provided on appeal. 3. The camera was supplied with a written warranty that provided: For a period of 1 (one) year from the Date of Purchase, Sony will bear the labor charges and the costs of parts needed for the repair of the product determined to be defective by the Authorised Service Centers or Sony Service Centers listed in this card or other facilities designated by the Contacts listed in this card ("Sony's Repair Facility(ies)")…." 1. The appellant returned to Sydney with his camera. Subsequently, he noticed that the camera did not operate correctly in that there was a defect which caused a red spot to appear in videos taken with the camera. The appellant described this as "a red pixel". 2. The appellant contacted the respondent and sought repair of the camera. It is common ground in the appeal that the respondent was liable under the terms of the warranty to carry out any such repairs as were covered by the warranty through any person appointed by the respondent to do so. A company called Digicam was appointed by the respondent as its authorised repair agent to carry out the repairs. 3. The appellant claimed that after four repairs had been made by Digicam, to repair the red pixel issue and various other problems which subsequently arose that the camera was returned in a defective state. The defect identified following the fourth repair was a problem with the sensor in the camera. 4. The appellant said that the respondent had previously offered (after the third repair) to replace the camera if it suffered further failure. The appellant says this promise was not met and that the respondent sought to charge the appellant for further repairs on the fifth occasion the camera was returned. The appellant then commenced proceedings in the Tribunal to recover the cost of the camera which are the subject of this appeal. 5. Those proceedings were application GEN 16/35494. In that application, the appellant sought the following orders: An order to fix or replace faulty goods, or deliver or return the goods to the value of $4500. I am seeking a brand-new replacement model of identical type to the camera that has been damaged during the repair process by Sony Australia. Total amount claimed: $4500. 1. The appellant's application was heard by the Tribunal on 24 October 2016. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal on that day and written reasons provided. 2. The appellant appeals the Tribunal's decision. Grounds of appeal and submissions 1. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 11 November 2016 on 18 November 2016. The appeal was lodged in time. The appellant also filed the following documents in support of his appeal: 1. a blue folder (BF) containing written submissions, document provided at the original hearing and DVDs containing a video and photographs of the camera; 2. a pink folder (PF) containing submissions and documents relating to repairs carried out to the camera; 3. a green folder (GF) containing new evidence upon which the appellant sought to rely (documents 1 – 13), a copy of the decision made 24 October 2016 and the sound recording of the hearing on that date; and 4. written submissions in reply (AR) including transcript extracts. 1. The respondent filed a reply to appeal dated 1 December 2016 and provided a bundle of documents (RB) including submissions in support of its position on 1 February 2017. 2. The appellant's submissions can be summarised as follows: 1. The camera had been purchased in Dubai however the warranty provided for repair of the camera in Australia, in this case by the respondent or its agent. 2. The camera suffered multiple defects and was returned for repair on four occasions. 3. On the third occasion, the respondent had offered to replace the camera if the repairs conducted on that occasion failed to rectify the full or if the camera suffered a further failure. 4. When returned after the third repair, the appellant said that the camera screen would not correctly display images and would flash intermittently. The camera was returned to the respondent on a fourth occasion, the respondent recording in its Service Form the reported fault/defect as "the camera is turned on the screen will flash a few times and then it's completely unresponsive" 5. When the camera was returned after the fourth repair, the appellant says it was received in a damaged state. The appellant says the camera was received by him on 6 July 2016. The packaging in which the camera was returned was opened by him and he observed the sensor was soiled and damaged. The appellant says he took photographs of the damaged camera and immediately emailed it to the respondent and informed the respondent of the defects. The photographs relied upon are BF 35, 36 and 37 (which is the email and photographs of the camera when returned) and BF46 which is a photograph of the camera in its original condition. 6. The appellant says he was then requested by the respondent's agent to return the camera a fifth time for repairs. However, he was then informed that the respondent did not accept responsibility to repair the camera and provided a quotation to carry out further repair work in the amount of $1402.96. A copy of the quotation is found at RB10. 7. The appellant did not accept the quotation nor did he accept that he had been responsible for the damage to the camera. Further, the appellant said that when he asked for his camera to be replaced with a new camera, the respondent failed to honour an earlier promise made after the third repair attempt contained in its email dated 29 June 2016 (BF31) that "in the unlikely event the camera exhibits any fault in the future (the respondent) will offer to replace the camera with a new model from our local Australian stock". 8. The appellant submitted that in light of the repeated failures he was entitled to the orders sought in the application. In doing so, he also submitted he was entitled to an order for general damages and/or damages for fraudulent, false or misleading conduct by the respondent. 1. In making the submissions concerning alleged fraudulent or misleading conduct, the appellant advised the Appeal Panel that he had received a copy of the Service Report No 118896 when the camera has been returned after the fourth repair (BF document 34). This indicated that the work carried out was "Refit slider assy and replaced main pcb (printed circuit board) under warranty". However, this description of repair work was different to that set out in the Service Form No 118896 as provided by the respondent in its bundle being document RB8. 2. The Service Form provided by the respondent (RB 8) recorded under the heading "Repair Notes" that the work carried out to the camera as part of the fourth repair was: Dismantled unit to replace parts listed. Performed alignment cleaned exterior and tested unit. 1. Also, that document identified the parts replaced as being the camera sensor and not the printed circuit board as identified on the Service Report which the appellant received with the camera when returned after the fourth repair. 2. The appellant contended that the respondent had fraudulently altered the Service Form to support its position that the appellant had damaged the camera and it was not otherwise faulty. The appellant referred to the exchange between the Tribunal and the respondent's representative Mr Blair at the original hearing (a transcript of which is found in AR2-7) and the denial of Mr Blair that there had been any inappropriate alteration to the documents. 3. In reply, the respondent accepted that it had an obligation under the warranty to repair any defects in the camera which were not caused by the appellant. Further, the respondent accepted that the first four occasions on which the camera was repaired by its agent related to repairs for which it was responsible under the terms of the warranty. 4. However, having set out in its written submissions the sequence of events in relation to those repairs and having provided relevant documents in relation to the work done, the respondent made the following written submissions: 1. previous repairs were completed for different faults; 2. the current fault (that is the damaged sensor identified after the return of the camera following the fourth repair) was "clearly customer induced damage". 3. any offers, if previously made, to replace the camera if a further fault occurred were on the basis that any damage to the camera was not customer induced. 1. Consequently, the respondent said that it would repair the camera for the quoted price or alternatively would be prepared to replace the camera on the basis that the appellant purchased the replacement camera at "cost price". 2. The parties' oral submissions consisted of the appellant setting out a chronology of what had occurred and referring the Appeal Panel to the documents which he had provided and explaining why he said the conclusions of the Tribunal were not supported by the evidence at the hearing. 3. The appellant also made submissions that he should be permitted to adduce fresh evidence in the appeal, being the evidence which we have identified above. In making these submissions the appellant accepted that some of the documents upon which he wished to rely are dated prior to the original hearing (for example the Startrack delivery document GF12 recording the time at which he received the camera after the fourth repair). Further, it was clear to the Appeal Panel that the appellant otherwise had the camera (following the Tribunal ordering the respondent to return the camera to the appellant) and had an opportunity to provide any expert evidence concerning any defects and the cause. 4. In reply, the respondent said that the Tribunal was correct to conclude on the evidence before it that the camera had been returned in working condition. The respondent agreed that the sensor of the camera was damaged as depicted in the photographs of the Appellant taken following return of the camera after the fourth repair. However, the respondent says that the damage must have been intentionally caused by the appellant. 5. The Appeal Panel noted the effect of Tribunal's decision was to reject the evidence of the appellant concerning the state of the camera when received on 6 July 2016 following carrying out of the fourth repair. When asked by the Appeal Panel why the appellant would have damaged the camera having returned it on multiple occasions for the purpose of having it repaired, the respondent said that it was "speculating" that the appellant wished to obtain a new camera. In effect, the respondent submitted that the Appeal Panel should infer that the camera when received by the appellant after the fourth repair was not defective because the Service Form (RB 8) recorded the sensor unit had been repaired and tested. 6. In reply to the respondent's oral submissions, the appellant said that the respondent had not provided any relevant evidence to contradict his position and that the respondent's position relies on inference or belief. On the other hand, the appellant says he provided evidence as to the state of the camera when returned, that he had tried to have the camera repaired five times and that the Tribunal was incorrect to conclude that he was responsible for any damage to the camera's sensor. In this regard the appellant said that the short timeline from when he received the camera following the fourth repair and reported the damaged sensor did not support a conclusion that he had used and damage the camera after its return. Consideration 1. This appeal involves a decision by the Tribunal to dismiss a claim by a consumer arising from a camera he says was returned in a damaged state following the carrying out of repairs by the respondent's agent pursuant to a warranty provided at the time the camera was purchase by the appellant in Dubai. 2. There is no dispute in the appeal that the respondent was liable to carry out the repairs and return the camera to the appellant in a working state. 3. The appellant sought to categorise his appeal as being an appeal on questions of law as well as on questions for which leave is required. To the extent necessary, the appellant sought leave to appeal, and said the decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence. The appellant also sought leave to adduce new evidence which he said was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. 4. The Appeal Panel recognises that it may be difficult for a self-represented appellant such as Mr Fardoulis to identify a precise question of law. Nonetheless, it is appropriate for the Appeal Panel to review the substance of the appellant's claims to determine if such a question is raised: see Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 at [12]. In the present case, the appellant challenges the conclusions of the Tribunal to reject the appellant's evidence as to the state of the camera when received by him and also the failure of the Tribunal to deal with the discrepancy between the two service forms. 5. An error of law includes a failure to give adequate reasons: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 at [50] and following and Prendergast at [13] and following. Insofar as leave to appeal is required, the appellant must satisfy the Appeal Panel that he may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice: see Sch4 cl12 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 (NCAT Act). The principles applicable to determine this question were dealt with by the Appeal Panel in Collins at [65] and following. 6. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application because it was not satisfied on the civil standard of proof that there were grounds to make the orders sought. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal said: The Tribunal cannot find on the evidence that there is a warrantable fault. There is no independent report to establish any manufacturing error or lack of due care by Digicam during the repair process under the TLW. The camera was returned to the applicant (see order 8 made on 29 August 2016). Apparently, at least 3 service repairers were approached by the applicant or independent report but each decline to assist on the grounds that they did not want to jeopardise the commercial relationships with the respondent. In the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant has established a warrantable fault. I also accept that the respondent's evidence (supported by service report and email correspondence from Digicam) that the camera sensor was replaced, that the camera was "tested OK", and that the repaired goods were packed appropriately and returned to the consumer in acceptable condition. There was a submission by the applicant that Digicam's service reports were falsified. The respondent's representative, Mr Blair, gave affirmed oral evidence at today's hearing. I am satisfied that he was a truthful witness and that there were no falsehoods or other discrepancies in Digicam's service reports. Nor am I persuaded that the respondent acted unconscionably and otherwise abused its 'dominant' position with the consumer. In this regard, the applicant relied upon a stream of emails with the respondent (containing assertions and arguments) and also the circumstances that the camera was replaced up to 5 times. I have reviewed the written evidence (including the email correspondence) and I have heard oral evidence today from both the applicant and Mr Blair for the respondent. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr Blair's evidence which is supported by contemporaneous documents such as service reports and emails. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that, at all material times, the respondent acted in good faith and with responsibility having regard to its obligations to the consumer under the Fair Trading Act and the ACL. In particular, I find that the respondent acted appropriately by refusing to provide a replacement camera (rather offering replacement parts for the camera at a discounted prices), in circumstances where it service provider Digicam had performed warranty services with due care and skill (replacing the camera's sensor) and there was evidence that the damage complained of was not a manufacturing fault but rather was caused by consumer use and not by the service provider. For the foregoing reasons the application must be dismissed. 1. The effect of the Tribunal's decision was to reject the evidence of the appellant as to the state of the camera when it was returned after the fourth repair. 2. To evaluate the appellant's claim and whether or not this decision was correct requires an analysis of the evidence provided to the Tribunal. This evidence consisted of the following: 1. The camera had been required to be repaired on four occasions for which the respondent accepted liability. The fourth repair, which took place in July 2016, was to address an issue that when "the camera is turned on the screen will flash a few times and then it's completely unresponsive": see Service Forms BF 34 and RB 8.There was no dispute in the appeal that following the fourth repair the camera was received by the appellant on 6 July 2016. 2. When the camera was returned after the fourth repair, the respondent's repair agent issued two documents entitled Service Form to each of the appellant and the respondent. Both service forms recorded the job number as 118896. However the repair notes and some other information was different on the two forms. 3. The service form provided to the appellant with the camera when returned (BF 34) stated that the slider assembly had been refitted and that the main printed circuit board had been replaced. 4. The service form which the respondent said it received from Digicam (setting out the cost of the repair work which the respondent was required to pay Digicam) said that the camera was dismantled, parts replaced, that an alignment had been performed, the exterior cleaned and the unit tested (RB 8). The parts said to have been replaced in this service form were identified as part no "A2081727A" described as "Service, Mecha Device (5100)". The Appeal Panel was informed that this part was the sensor. Also relevant is that both service forms record the repairs to the camera having been commenced on 5 July 2016. 5. The respondent's evidence was that the camera "was beyond pristine condition when it left (Digicam). Last person to wrap this camera was our senior tech, Ray. I can't tell you the colourful language Ray used when he opened this email. That ridiculous soiling has been done after it left here. No doubt whatever. Let me know what I can do, but understand this is not a faulty product. Unbelievable and disappointing." (RB 11, email from "Jeff" at page 6) 6. The appellant's evidence was that he opened the package and observed the sensor was soiled and damaged. He took a photo of the camera and emailed it to the respondent by email dated 6 July 2016 seen at 5:02 PM (BF 35). 1. It is common ground that the sensor is defective having regard to its state as depicted in the photograph taken by the appellant on 6 July 2016 and as confirmed by the subsequent inspection and quotation prepared by Digicam when returned on the fifth occasion: (RB 10- see Service Quotation Form Job Number 119071). 2. The Tribunal found on page 3 of its reasons: There is no independent report to establish any manufacturing error or lack of due care by Digicam during the repair process under the TLW. Camera was returned to the applicant (see order 8 made 29 August 2016). Apparently, at least 3 service repairers were approached by the applicant for independent report but each decline to assist on the grounds that they did not want to jeopardise the commercial relationship with the respondent. In the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant has established a warrantable fault. 1. As recorded above, it was common ground in the appeal that the state of the sensor and the markings on it constituted a defect. There was evidence that when it was returned for the fifth repair there were marks on the sensor, some of which could be removed and some of which were permanent and could not be removed (see RB 11). Therefore it is difficult to understand the relevance of the fact that the appellant did not provide an independent expert report. Presumably, such a report would have confirmed what was recorded in the Digicam quotation prepared in August 2016, namely that the sensor was defective and needed to be replaced. 2. The Tribunal concluded that the camera sensor was replaced, that the camera was "tested ok" and "that the repaired goods were packaged appropriately and returned to the consumer in an acceptable condition". Consequently the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not liable to the appellant as there was no "warrantable fault". 3. No party in the appeal suggested that, when returned for the fourth repair, the sensor had pre-existing damage of the type apparent when the camera was returned following that repair. No party in the appeal suggested that the respondent was not responsible for carrying out work required by the fourth repair and delivering the camera to the appellant in working condition. Therefore, the real question for determination was whether or not the camera when delivered to the appellant was in a damaged or defective state or whether the appellant damaged the sensor when the camera when received by him. 4. In our view, the facts to which the Tribunal referred do not lead to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the damage. Further, the Tribunal does not provide adequate reasons as to why the matter was resolved against the appellant and why it was appropriate to dismiss his claim. 5. There are a number of reasons why we have reached this conclusion and why we are of the opinion that the decision is not fair and reasonable or against the weight of evidence. 6. First, it might be inferred that the Tribunal concluded the appellant was not accepted as a witness of truth and that his evidence was rejected because of the evidence from the respondent and the emails from Digicam as to the state of the camera when it left possession of Digicam. 7. This may have been a reasonable conclusion in the absence of any other evidence. However, there was evidence before the Tribunal and before the Appeal Panel that immediately upon opening the package containing the camera, the appellant observed the soiled and damaged nature of the sensor. He then took a photograph of the camera which he immediately sent by email to the respondent. 8. Aside from the photograph taken by the appellant, there was no other physical evidence as to the state of the camera when it was received by him (as opposed to when it left the premises of Digicam) and no evidence that the appellant had otherwise used the camera after it was returned. There is no suggestion that the camera had this defect prior to its delivery to Digicam for the fourth repair. Indeed, on the respondent's case the sensor had been replaced. 9. The communications between Digicam and the appellant do not provide evidence that the appellant himself damaged the camera: see e.g. email from Mr Nagy to "Jeff" dated 7 July 2016 sent at 10:39AM (RB 11 page3). Neither party pointed to any oral evidence nor cross-examination of the appellant suggesting the damage to the camera was intentionally or unintentionally caused by the appellant. There is no plausible reason why the appellant would intentionally or unintentionally damage the camera. This is particularly so when one considers he returned the camera on the first four occasions (for which the respondent accepted responsibility). 10. The respondent submitted that the appellant opened the package and intentionally damaged the camera when returned on 6 July 2016. The respondent submitted the appellant did so for the purpose of securing a new camera pursuant to an earlier offer by the respondent to replace the camera: see respondent's emails dated 28 June 2016 sent at 6:19PM and 29 June 2016 sent at 2:56PM (BF 30 and 31). 11. The Appeal Panel asked the respondent's representative what evidence there was to support a submission that the appellant intentionally damaged the goods. The respondent's representative could not identify any direct evidence to support this submission and said this submission was "speculation" about the conduct of the appellant. The respondent said the only fact to support its position was the evidence that the sensor was not damaged when it left Digicam. 12. There are a number of problems with this submission. 13. One is the appellant's email to the respondent sending the photograph of the damaged camera was on the same day the camera was returned, shortly after the package was opened by the appellant. The other is that the appellant in fact returned the camera on a fifth occasion to get the sensor damage assessed and repaired. While the appellant expressed his frustration in having to return the camera for a fifth time (see appellant's email dated 7 July 2016 sent at 11:06am -BF 38), this conduct is inconsistent with the appellant intentionally damaging the camera for the purpose of obtaining a new camera. 14. It follows that these matters do not provide a basis to reject the photographic evidence nor the other evidence of the appellant about the state of the camera when he opened the package. 15. Second, the Tribunal found there were no discrepancies between the service forms. This conclusion is not consistent with the documentary evidence. 16. The service form which was sent to the appellant when the camera was returned did not include work to replace the sensor. Rather, in the service form sent to the appellant, Digicam described the work which it had carried out as refitting the slider assembly and replacing the printed circuit board. No part details were recorded at the bottom of that service form. No suggestion was made in that document that the sensor had been replaced. The service form sent by Digicam to the respondent said the sensor was replaced and had a significantly different description of the work performed. 17. The appellant made submissions at the original hearing on this aspect. The Tribunal asked questions about this matter during the course of the original hearing (see AR pages 5-7). As the exchange between the respondent's representative and the Tribunal shows, the Tribunal was aware of the difference in the documents. 18. The Tribunal does not address these matters in its decision nor evaluate their significance in deciding the case. Rather, it appears the Tribunal simply accepted the evidence from Digicam (being the service form sent by Digicam to the respondent and the subsequent Digicam emails) as to what repairs were effected and what was the state of the camera when it left Digicam. 19. A contrary view was that no repairs were done to the sensor, a finding consistent with the content of the service form sent to the appellant when the camera was returned. In this regard there was no physical evidence as to the state or the operation of the camera (for example photographs taken by the camera as part of a test procedure following repair work) or photographs of the camera following completion of the repair work. 20. Such a finding would have supported the position of the appellant. 21. Third, even if repairs were carried out and the sensor replaced in terms of the service form sent to the respondent by Digicam and the evidence of the respondent's witnesses is otherwise accepted, at best that evidence proves the state of the camera at a point in time prior to its receipt by the appellant. However, it is not evidence of the state of the camera when received by the appellant on 6 July 2016. 22. There was no dispute that the respondent would be responsible if the goods, when received by the appellant, were in a damaged or defective state. 23. In the absence of contrary evidence as to the state of the camera when received and in the absence of evidence that the appellant intentionally or unintentionally damaged the camera when returned, there is no reason to reject the photographic evidence or what the appellant said he observed when he opened the package. 24. When seen in this light, it seems to us that the reasons of the Tribunal are not adequate to explain how discrepancies in the evidence were resolved. Further, and in any event, the decision of the Tribunal was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of the evidence and we are satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice. 25. It follows that, to the extent necessary leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed and the order made by the Tribunal to dismiss the appellant's application should be set aside. What orders should be made? 1. The appellant contended that an order should be made in his favour for the replacement of the camera having regard to the number of repairs that have been necessary. 2. We do not agree. 3. As indicated above, our conclusion that the Tribunal was in error was based on our view that the camera was damaged when the package returning the camera to the appellant was opened by the appellant. Having provided a repair quotation dated 23 August 2016 (AR 10), it is clear from the evidence that the respondent is able to repair this damage at a cost substantially less than the cost of a replacement camera. The particular defect does not appear to be the same as the earlier problems and the replacement is not otherwise justified. Lastly, the evidence provided by the appellant does not prove the amount he paid for the camera and, in these circumstances an order for refund would also be inappropriate. 4. Accordingly, an order should be made that the camera be returned to the respondent for the purpose of carrying out the repairs to the sensor as set out in the service quotation. Thereafter, it is appropriate that the camera be returned to the respondent in Sydney who can make arrangements for the camera to be collected by the appellant. At the point of collection, the parties will be able to meet and confirm the operational status of the camera thereby avoiding or minimising the likelihood of any further disputation. 5. In the event the camera is not satisfactorily repaired, the appellant will be at liberty to make an application in the Tribunal for leave to renew the proceedings in accordance with Sch 4 Cl 8 of the NCAT Act. Orders 1. Having regard to the above conclusions the Appeal Panel makes the following order: 1. To the extent necessary, leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The order made 24 October 2016 to dismiss the application is set aside and in lieu thereof the following orders are made: 1. Within 30 days from the date of these orders, respondent is to carry out, at its cost, the repairs to Sony camera model ACLE-7RM2 serial number 4478990 set out in the quotation from Digicam No 119071 dated 23 August 2016 (Quotation) and thereafter test the camera and ensure it operates correctly; 2. Following the carrying out of repairs in accordance with order (a), the camera is to be collected by the appellant from the office of the respondent at North Sydney. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 March 2017