Tallevine Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Isuzu v Levoune [2018] NSWCATAP 53

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tallevine Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Isuzu v Levoune [2018] NSWCATAP 53 Hearing dates: 15 February 2018 Date of orders: 27 February 2018 Decision date: 27 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: M Harrowell, Principal Member J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: (1) Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: LEAVE TO APPEAL - no issue of principle - no substantial miscarriage of justice Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 Cases Cited: Al Daouk v Mr Pine t/a Furnco Bankstown [2015] NSWCATAP 111 Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Khan v Kang [2014] NSWCATAP 48 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tallevine Pty Ltd t/as Pennant Hills Isuzu (Appellant) Scott Levoune (Respondent) Representation: I Creak, Director (Appellant) In person (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 17/51612 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 31 October 2017 Before: P Smith, General Member File Number(s): MV 17/25613

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. On 31 October 2017 the Tribunal made an award of $1500.00 in favour of the respondent, being damages for defects in a new motor vehicle which the respondent had purchased from the appellant on 1 April 2017. 2. The respondent had filed application MV 17/25613 on 6 June 2017. That application had sought various compensation in excess of $14,000 in respect of various defects said to exist in the vehicle at the time of purchase. 3. The proceedings had been listed for hearing by the Tribunal on 31 October 2017. Prior to this time, the Tribunal had made directions for the parties to file and serve evidence in support of their respective positions. 4. The Tribunal provided written reasons which were attached to the orders made 31 October 2017. The Tribunal accepted evidence provided by the respondent that some of the defects, about which complaint was made, existed in the vehicle at the time of purchase. In doing so, the Tribunal was provided with and reviewed photographs taken by the respondent of the alleged defects. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had returned the motor vehicle to the appellant which had "re-detailed and polished the vehicle". Despite this work the Tribunal accepted that there was "minor damage to the non-genuine accessories and the finishes of the vehicle". Consequently, the Tribunal determined an award should be made in favour of the respondent which included "replacement tray assembly parts, nudge bar and ladder rack, grill and the cost of further detailing of exterior and repairs to the trim". 5. In making this award, the Tribunal noted that the relationship between the parties had broken down. Consequently, while declining to make a work order, the Tribunal only awarded the respondent the "wholesale costs" of the replacement parts.