NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Matumaini v Automobile Industries Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 93 Hearing dates: 8 December 2015, 20 May 2016; Final submissions 28 October 2016 Date of orders: 28 April 2017 Decision date: 28 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: K Rosser, Principal Member L P Robberds QC, Senior Member Decision: 1. Pursuant to s50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW, the Appeal Panel dispenses with a further hearing on the quantum of the loss or damage claimed by the Appellant. 2.The appeal is allowed in part and the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Appellant the sums of $2,500, $1,588.19 and $184 making a total of $4,272.19, such sum to be paid by 24 May 2017. 3.Otherwise the appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL - CONSUMER LAW – failure to comply with consumer guarantees under Australian Consumer Law (NSW) – major failure – remedies available to consumer – consumer's motor car breaks down – not necessary for consumer to prove a particular identified defect caused the breakdown in order to make a successful claim – only necessary to prove car was not of acceptable quality Consumer borrows money from finance company to buy motor car – motor car not of acceptable quality – is supplier liable to pay consumer the amount owing by the consumer to the finance company CONSUMER LAW – application of Australian Consumer Law (NSW) to consumer claims in NSW Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Fair Trading Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Lam v Steve Jarvin Motors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 186 O'Farrell v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2015] NSWCA 48 State Rail Authority v Consumer Claims Tribunal (1988) 14 NSWLR 473 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mike Matumaini (Appellant) Automobile Industries Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: R Francois (Appellant) 8 December 2015
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