Antonio v Trotter Automotive Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 140

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Antonio v Trotter Automotive Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 140 Hearing dates: 23 April 2019 Date of orders: 06 June 2019 Decision date: 06 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Curtin SC, Senior Member D Goldstein, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL – inadequate reasons

DAMAGES – general principles – measure of damages - difficulty of assessing damages –– absence of evidence to allow a rational assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law, s 18 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act No.2 2013 (NSW), ss 38(2), 38(4), Schedule 14, cl 12(1)(c) Cases Cited: Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Troulis v Vamvoukakis [1998] NSWCA 237 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Terence Antonio (Appellant) Trotter Automotive Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Terence Antonio (Appellant in person) Justin Wilkie (Dealer principal, by leave) File Number(s): AP 19/08793 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 25 January 2019 Before: M Gilson, General Member File Number(s): MV 18/44020

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The appellant purchased a motor vehicle from the respondent in October 2017. He said he purchased the motor vehicle at least partly because it had been advertised as a 2014 model built in 2014. He subsequently found out that it was a 2013 model built in 2013. He unsuccessfully sought to return the vehicle to the respondent and obtain a refund. 2. The appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the Tribunal but was unsuccessful. The appellant appeals from that decision. 3. Regrettably, the Tribunal's written reasons are deficient, and there is no sound recording of the evidence given below. 4. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant did not provide the Tribunal with any evidence from which a rational assessment of his loss could have been made even if the appellant was otherwise successful in his case.