Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Christopher Harrison v Scott Devlin [2017] NSWCATCD 104 Hearing dates: 30 October 2017 Date of orders: 13 November 2017 Decision date: 13 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: B Shipp, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $4,200. This amount is due and payable 2 weeks after the date of these orders. (2) The Applicant shall deliver possession of the vehicle to the Respondent on or before 2 weeks after the date of these Orders. (3) For the purpose of these orders, the Respondent is to arrange and pay for the collection of the vehicle. Catchwords: Acceptable Quality Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Australian Consumer Law Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2016 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Christopher Harris (Applicant) Mr Scott Devlin (Respondent) Representation: The Applicant by phone The Respondent in person File Number(s): MV 17/32082 Publication restriction: Nil REASONS FOR DECISION Background and Jurisdiction 1. The Applicant purchased a 1996 Mitsubishi Pajero ("the vehicle") from the Respondent on 13 May 2017. The Applicant alleges that he became aware of problems with the vehicle on the same day on the drive back to his then residence near Hay, NSW. He believes the vehicle was unroadworthy at the time of sale, and he seeks to return the vehicle and obtain a full refund. 2. The Respondent denies that the vehicle was unroadworthy, suggests that there was a problem with the water pump only, and that he had agreed to purchase a replacement part as a matter of goodwill. He does not agree to accept a return of the vehicle or to pay any amount of money to the Applicant. 3. The Tribunal's Consumer and Commercial division has jurisdiction in relation to matters arising under various legislation including the Fair Trading Act 1998 (NSW)(CCA) which in turn may raise issues rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACL was incorporated into the law of New South Wales by section 28(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) ('FTA'). The ACL (NSW) consists of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cwth), and the regulations under section 139G of that Act (FTA section 27). 4. The ACL applies to create rights at law in consumers that fall within the terms of the ACL including the consumer guarantee provisions in sections 54-60 of Part 3-2 ACL. Whilst the ACL creates a cause of action at law and a range of remedies for parties, it does not of itself confer any jurisdiction on this Tribunal to hear those actions and provide those remedies. 5. Section 79J FTA gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear claims falling under the FTA. Section 79D of the FTA defines a 'consumer' to include a natural person to whom a supplier has supplied or agreed to supply goods or services, whether under a contract or not. The Applicant meets this description. 6. The claim arises from the supply of goods to the consumer (under a contract or not), and constitutes a claim by the consumer for the payment of a specified sum of money (FTA section 79E). The goods to which the claim relates were supplied in NSW (FTA section 79K). The claim was made within the period of time allowed in Section 79L FTA. I also note that the Applicant is now a resident of New Zealand, but that both he and the Respondent were residents of NSW at the time of sale of the vehicle, and that the Applicant remained a resident of NSW when he made his application. 7. The claim is therefore one maintainable under the FTA but as such is subject to the Tribunal's monetary jurisdiction which is limited by section 79S FTA to making orders for the payment of no more than the prescribed amount. The Applicant's claim is within the monetary limits prescribed. Proceedings 1. The matter first came before the Tribunal on 28 August 2017. Both parties appeared and could not resolve the matter. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for hearing, and made directions were made for both parties to submit any documents they would rely on within a certain timeframe. The Applicant submitted his documents, following an agreed extension of time. There were no documents submitted by the Respondent. 2. At the final hearing before me, the Applicant appeared by phone and gave evidence on affirmation. The Respondent attended in person and gave evidence on oath. The Respondent stated he was not seeking to rely on any documents other than those submitted by the Applicant. Applicant's evidence 1. The Applicant relied on: 1. His Summary of Events, 2. Proofs of payment 3. Form 5 Notice 4. Vehicle advertisement on gumtree 5. Timeline and record of calls to Respondent 6. Undated report of Mr Anthony Ellis, Bullant Motors, Hay. 7. Tax Invoice dated 14 July 2017 from Bullant Motors 8. Details of travel, fuel and accommodation costs claimed. 1. The Applicant's claim is based on a breach of the following guarantees under ACL: 1. S 56 The Goods (the vehicle) did not correspond with the description 2. S 54 The Goods was not of acceptable quality 3. S 55 The Goods were not reasonably fit for the purpose he specified. 1. Most of the Applicant's evidence related to the vehicle not being of acceptable quality, and this is considered first. 2. In summary, the Applicant claims as follows: 1. He saw the vehicle advertised on Gumtree. It is described as being "in great condition for its age and Kilometres … in excellent all round condition … a V6 motor fitted with LPG to save heaps on running cost. The car has excellent paint … and the body is spotless with no damage or previous repairs to the interior … in excellent condition" 2. He rang the Respondent who confirmed all the electronics in the vehicle were fully functioning. Relying on this information, he paid a deposit over the phone and arranged collection for the following weekend. 3. The car was not as advertised. There were various electrical faults including the tail light, sunroof, window and antenna. It was also in a poor cosmetic condition including large scratches, dents and chips to both the interiors and exterior and windscreen. 4. He asked the Respondent to refund him the deposit but this was refused. The Respondent agreed to fix these issues before he left with the vehicle. The respondent fixed everything except the sunroof. He said it needed a switch which was cheap and easy to replace and he would sent it to him in the mail and pay for an auto electrician to install it. 5. He took the vehicle for a short test drive and it immediately stalled when switched from petrol to LPG while stationary. He found there was no coolant in the auxiliary coolant bottle. He returned to the dealership and again asked the Respondent to refund him the deposit. The Respondent refused. The respondent denied that there was any problem with the fuel system. The respondent stated had simply failed to fill up the coolant bottle. He said the LPG was merely a case of adding fuel 6. He paid the balance of the purchase price, and began driving the vehicle home to Hay. He immediately discovered the following problems: * The LPG system did not function under 50kph, causing it to stall on the highway, and causing the brakes and steering to become unresponsive * The heater in the air conditioner did not work which meant he could not clear the windscreen * The entire contents of the coolant system leaked out of the engine. 1. He contacted the Respondent the following day who "took full responsibility for the faults" but again refused to refund anything for the vehicle. He offered to repair the faults. The respondent stated the coolant was involved in the operation of both the heater and the LPG system and all problems were related. The Respondent advised him to take the vehicle to a reputable mechanic and he would pay for the repairs 2. He took the vehicle to independent local mechanics who could have fixed the vehicle in a reasonable period of time. However, the Respondent refused to allow the mechanics to supply parts. He offered to buy the parts himself but there was significant delay. 3. He has told the Respondent he was moving from the farm at Hay to another farm elsewhere and needed a vehicle to do this. Due to the faults with the vehicle, he was never able to use the vehicle for this purpose, and was forced to borrow his girlfriend's car at considerable expense to himself. 4. He initially took the vehicle to Arandt Automotive. He used some coolant he had purchased and "limped the car to the garage" before he started work. The mechanic at Arandt told him the coolant leak was coming from the water pump. Due to the severity of the leak, they would also need to replace the timing belt. The mechanic stated it would take 5 to 6 hours. 5. He told the Respondent about this diagnosis, and again asked for a refund, which he refused. The respondent stated it was not a major failure, and therefore it should be repaired rather than refunded. He wanted the quote from the mechanic. The quote from Arendt came in at $1,800. The Respondent stated this was too expensive, and he wanted to supply the parts himself. He offered to buy the parts and send them overnight express. The Respondent also said he would call the mechanic to negotiate the price down. Three days later, the Respondent told him he had spoken to the mechanic, and would not pay for the timing belt because he did not believe it needed to be replaced. 6. He then contacted a second mechanic – Bullant Motors. Bullant also quoted 5 to 6 hours labour. He informed the Respondent. The respondent indicated he had ordered the water pump and arranged for it to be delivered to Hay, however 2 days later it had still not arrived and the time when he had to move was getting close. The supplier in Campbelltown who the Respondent said he was using denied that an order had been taken from the Respondent. The Respondent agreed that a mistake had been made, and he would purchase a water pump and send it himself. Later on the same day, he sent a photo of the water pump. 7. On the following day (26 May), Bullant indicated the part had not arrived, and it would also be essential to install a new timing belt due to the damage that would have occurred during the leak. The Respondent messaged him with the tracking number for the part he said he had sent express post. The Respondent messaged back indicating it was now too late as he would not be able to use his vehicle for his move on the following day, and that the repair had been unreasonably delayed. 1. The Applicant produces an undated report from Mr Anthony Ellis who describes himself as the owner and chief mechanic of Bullant Motors. It is headed "Mechanic Report for 1996 Pajero". He states he inspected the vehicle on 23 May 2017 and makes the following observations: 1. There is a major coolant leak due to "a total failure of the water pump. The water pump is an essential component for pumping coolant around the engine. Without a correctly functioning water pump, the car will not be in a roadworthy condition and will likely overheat in a matter of minutes, causing permanent engine damage. In this instance, it is not possible to drive this car safely on the road." 2. The internal heater is non-functioning ("no final conclusion drawn") 3. The sunroof is non-functioning ("no final conclusion drawn") 4. The LPG system is non-functioning below 50kph ("reported by owner but not investigated") 1. Mr Ellis also provides his opinion about the likely cause of the water pump failure: "Having inspected the condition of the pump and the surrounding components, I believe the pump had been gradually deteriorating over a period of time prior to inspection. This would have resulted in a minor coolant leak, however if the coolant was regularly topped up, this would not have stopped the car from functioning … running a car in this condition over a period of time has cause significant coolant leakage on the timing belt and associated parts, causing significant damage such that it would be strongly advised to replace these components of the engine immediately. 2. He also comments on the other faults as follows: "The internal heater not functioning is a common symptom of a water pump failure. The water pump is required to pump hot coolant through a heater core, which then transfers the heat to the internal compartment of the vehicle … it is possible that this heater failure has been caused by a failure of another part of the system which has not yet been determined "The Sunroof does not open and close when the switch is operated. This could be due to a faulty switch or something more problematic although this has not been investigated" "It was also reported to me that the LPG system was not functioning correctly. As this was fitted after the car was manufactured … a specialised LPG mechanic would be better placed to comment … I have been unable to test this as the car is not roadworthy." 1. Bullant Motors provides an invoice for $1,737 associated with the labour and parts for replacing the timing belt and water pump. The Respondent has refused to pay this amount, and the vehicle remains at Bullant Motors. He is not sure whether the part sent by the Respondent ever arrived. 2. The Applicant submits both that the vehicle is not as it was described, and that it is not of acceptable quality. Even though it is 21 years old and has driven more than 300,000 km, it "should last more than 24 hours". Respondents' Evidence 1. The Respondent provided the following relevant evidence: 1. It was daylight when the Applicant collected the vehicle. There was no problem with the bodywork and it had 4 new tyres. The suspension was good, as was the motor and the gearbox. 2. The car was roadworthy. He has to obtain a government roadworthy certificate before he can sell it. 3. The only clear issue with the vehicle is the problem with the water pump. All the other issues – the heating and LPG problem – are related to this. The LPG system won't work without any water in the pump. Documents which came with the vehicle indicate that the water pump had been replaced less than 2 years prior to the vehicle being sold to the Applicant. 4. The sunroof requires the operation of 2 switches to work. The Applicant may not be aware of this. 5. He now understands the Applicant drove over 700 kilometres on the day he purchased the vehicle. It would not have been possible to do this with a broken water pump. It may have been the Applicant's manner of driving on the way back to his residence which caused the damage. 6. He did agree to supply a new water pump as a matter of goodwill. He never agreed to pay the installation costs. The vehicle is 21 years old and had travelled 351,000 kilometres at the time of sale. 7. The quote for $1,700 is too expensive. There is no need to remove the engine, as the water pump is an external part that bolts on. The part is not $300 (as Bullant suggest). It is only $60, and the total repair should have been no more than $300 or $400 repair. 8. There was a delay in supplying the part. This was associated with Autopro refusing to accept an inter-store transfer. He only discovered this after he made the original order. He then had to source the pump from another supplier, which led to the delay. He has sent it off, and he sent the Applicant the tracking number. 9. If the Applicant had problems with the vehicle, he should have turned around and returned it to him for an inspection and any necessary repairs. The Applicant in response 1. The Applicant noted there were problems with the vehicle throughout his journey home, but he was able to continue driving. 2. It was not practical to return the vehicle to Campbelltown as it was very late by the time he got to Hay The Law and its application 1. To succeed in his application, the applicant must establish on the civil standard of proof that his evidence supports the claim that the respondent has failed to comply with any applicable standards for a provider of goods required under the law. In this matter, that includes the ACL consumer guarantees and the repair guarantee under Section 68 of the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act (MD and R Act). 2. There was no repair guarantee applicable under Section 68 of the MD and R Act as the age of the vehicle and distance travelled meant there was no applicable statutory warranty. 3. The most relevant ACL guarantee in this matter is that contained in s54 of the ACL which provides: Guarantee as to acceptable quality (1) If: (a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and (b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction; there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality. (2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as: (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and (d) safe; and (e) durable; as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3). (3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are: (a) the nature of the goods; and (b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and (c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and (d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and (e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods. 1. This is an objective test which calls upon the Tribunal to put itself in the position of a reasonable consumer with knowledge of the state and condition of the goods, including any defect in the goods that may not have been apparent at the time of sale. 2. The only independent evidence of the condition of the vehicle is contained in the report of Mr Ellis of Bullant Motors which was based on his inspection of the vehicle 10 days post-purchase. There are some problems with this report: 1. It is undated and does not comply with the requirements for expert reports set out Procedural Direction 3 Expert Witnesses, in so far as there is no acknowledgement that the author has read the Experts Code of Conduct and has agreed to be bound by it, and there is no reference to the author's qualification. 2. The report itself indicates its limitations including being unable to absolutely determine the cause of some of the faults, partly because the care is not in a condition to be test-driven. 1. These problems with the evidence somewhat affect the weight I can give the report but does not mean I should totally ignore the contents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept that Mr Ellis, as the owner of the business and a mechanic, has some expertise in providing his opinion about these matters. In relation to the likely cause of problems with the vehicle, I prefer his evidence to that of the Respondent, who stated he is not a mechanic. 2. On the basis of the evidence provided, I make the following findings: * There was a total failure of the water pump, which caused the coolant leak and likely affected the operation of other parts of the vehicle including the LPG system, and heating in the vehicle. I note that this was not in dispute, though the cause was. * It is likely that the water pump has been gradually deteriorating over a period of time (Bullant report). The suggestion that the damage caused due to the manner of the Applicant's driving is pure speculation. The Applicant had noticed a lack of coolant when taking the vehicle for a test drive prior to leaving Campbelltown where the vehicle was purchased. This is indicative of a water pump failure at the time of sale. The Respondent's suggestion that the vehicle could not have driven over 700 km with a broken water pump (and therefore must have been caused after sale) is not supported by any independent evidence. * A faulty water pump can cause permanent engine damage (Bullant) * Due to the water pump failing and the coolant leakage, the repair will also require replacement of the timing belt (Bullant). * The vehicle was advertised as being "in great condition for its age and kilometres", and being "in excellent all round condition" * There is no evidence of any other mechanical problems with the vehicle. 1. In determining whether the vehicle was of acceptable quality at the time of sale, I take into account the purchase price paid by the Applicant ($4,000), the odometer reading at the time of sale (about 350,000 km) and the age of the vehicle (21 years). A reasonable consumer buying a vehicle of this nature, and relying on the Respondent's representations would not in my view expect a failure of the vehicle within the first 24 hours sufficient to cause it to be unsafe to drive. A reasonable consumer would expect that a vehicle of this age and usage would require the regular replacement of other parts, including such items as a sunroof switch, and that it would likely have some scratches, dents and chips. 2. In summary, I am satisfied the damaged water pump was a defect which made this vehicle not of acceptable quality, and that this amounts to a breach of Section 54 of the ACL. 3. Having made this finding, it is unnecessary to consider the Applicant's other claims relating to a breach of the guarantees in Sections 55 and 56 of the ACL. I note that the Applicant's assertions regarding a breach of Section 56 (not in accordance with the description) relates to the difference between the advertised condition and the actual condition. Had I been required to make a finding, I would not be satisfied the breach was established, given the age and usage of the vehicle. I would also not have found a breach of Section 55, as the vehicle could still be used for its intended purpose – i.e. as a vehicle. To What Remedy is the Applicant entitled? 1. Part 5-4 of the ACL deals with the remedies for non-compliance with a consumer guarantee. In order to determine what remedy is available to the Applicant, I have to determine if non-compliance by the Respondent amounts to a "major failure". 2. This is defined in Section 260 of the ACL as follows: A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if: (a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or (b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects: (i) if they were supplied by description--from that description; or (ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model--from that sample or demonstration model; or (c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to: (i) the supplier of the goods; or (ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made; and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or (e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe. 1. I have found that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality due to the failure of the water pump. There is no suggestion that the vehicle was mechanically unsound in any other way. If the vehicle became unsafe, it was only because of the broken water pump. I am not satisfied that a reasonable consumer who was aware of this defect would have chosen not to acquire the vehicle, given the absence of any other major unrelated defects. 2. Section 259 relevantly provides: (2) If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure: (a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or (b) if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time--the consumer may: (i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or (ii) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection. (3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may: (a) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection; or (b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods. (4) The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure. (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier. (6) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3). (7) The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging. 1. In this matter, the Applicant promptly requested the Respondent to refund the purchase price after he became aware of the extent of the problems. The Respondent indicated he would arrange for repairs, but the evidence makes it clear that he only agreed to supply a part. The Applicant claims the Respondent agreed to pay for its installation, but the Respondent denied this at the hearing. In his evidence, he suggests that the quote from Bullant is excessive; however he provides no independent evidence. I prefer the evidence of Bullant as to the reasonable costs of repairing the defect. The Respondent's failure to pay in accordance with this quotation means that he is constructively refusing to have the defect repaired within a reasonable time. 2. In these circumstances and despite the fact that the failure relates to just item which could presumably otherwise have been easily repaired, I am satisfied the Applicant is entitled to exercise his rights under S 259 to reject the goods. 3. Section 262 of the ACL provides: 262 When consumers are not entitled to reject goods (1) A consumer is not entitled, under section 259, to notify a supplier of goods that the consumer rejects the goods if: (a) the rejection period for the goods has ended; or (b) the goods have been lost, destroyed or disposed of by the consumer; or (c) the goods were damaged after being delivered to the consumer for reasons not related to their state or condition at the time of supply; or (d) the goods have been attached to, or incorporated in, any real or personal property and they cannot be detached or isolated without damaging them. (2) The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) to become apparent having regard to: (a) the type of goods; and (b) the use to which a consumer is likely to put them; and (c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and (d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent. 1. I am satisfied that the rejection period has not ended. The vehicle is still with Bullant, and has been there since 2 weeks after purchase. There is no evidence that it has been further damaged. The Applicant requested a refund as soon as the extent of the failure to comply with the guarantee became apparent. He has made only one major journey of about 750 kilometres in the vehicle. 2. Having rejected the goods, he is also entitled in my view to a full refund for the purchase price of the vehicle (S 263(4)(a)(i) of the ACL). Given the length of time the vehicle has been off the road, and the limited use he has had of it, he has gained little to no benefit from the use of the vehicle. 3. He also seeks fuel, travel and accommodation costs associated with the original journey to collect the vehicle, and a subsequent journey on 27 May to collect his girlfriend's vehicle from Canberra when he was moving out of the farm at Hay. Section 259(4) relates to a claim for these further costs. It provides: The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure. 1. The Applicant claims these costs were the direct result of his inability to use the vehicle due to its unroadworthy condition. I accept the Applicant's evidence that he had notified the Respondent of his intention to use the vehicle to move out of his accommodation. It was therefore reasonably foreseeable that he would be put to extra cost if that vehicle was not usable. I am not satisfied however that the total amount claimed - $559 – is reasonable. I did not find that the defect causing the breach of the ACL guarantee amounts to a major failure. It could have been remedied. The Applicant is not entitled to the costs of travel to Campbelltown to collect the vehicle. The trip 2 weeks later relates to a convoluted trip. I am not satisfied that the full costs can be reasonably passed on to the respondent as being foreseeable. Doing the best I can with the information, I allow an additional $200 for the reasonably foreseeable damages associated with the breach. 2. The Applicant is therefore entitled to be reimbursed $4,200, on the basis that he returns the vehicle to the Respondent. 3. I note that the vehicle is at Bullant Motors in Hay in an undriveable condition. The Applicant mentioned the registration is about to expire. It is clear that the Applicant cannot return the vehicle without significant cost. I am satisfied therefore that the Respondent will need to arrange for collection of the vehicle at his expense (S 263(3) of the ACL). 4. I order therefore as follows: 1. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $4,200. This amount is due and payable 2 weeks after the date of these orders. 2. The Applicant shall deliver possession of the vehicle to the Respondent on or before 2 weeks after the date of these Orders. 3. For the purpose of these orders, the Respondent is to arrange and pay for the collection of the vehicle. B Shipp Senior Member Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales 13 November 2017 ***** 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: 26 June 2018