Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover - [2025] QCAT 232

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover[2025] QCAT 232

MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover[2025] QCAT 232

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover [2025] QCAT 232

PARTIES:

MKG LEGAL GROUP PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

AUSTRAL PTY LTD T/AS BRISBANE CITY LAND ROVER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL221-23

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2025

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – jurisdiction of the tribunal – whether motor vehicle of acceptable quality – fault appeared after 5 years and 60,000 kms – timing chain stretched causing DPF failure – not a major fault – repaired under warranty – with complex machinery some components may need adjustment or replacement – tolerance expected of a reasonable consumer

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2 s 54, sch 2 s 259(2), sch 2 s 259(3), sch 2 s 259(4), sch 2 s 260

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A

Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), Schedule 1

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672

Finch v IClick Group Pty Ltd t/a Beepz Auto Solutions [2023] QCAT 55

Howarth v Biscamoss Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 72

Jarmain v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd t/as MDC Camper Trailers & Offroad Caravans [2022] QCAT 375

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited v Williams (2023) 296 FCR 514

Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (2022) FCA 344

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The Applicant seeks a refund of the purchase price of a motor vehicle purchased, new, from the Respondent on 2 October 2018. The purchase price was $62,564.10. The vehicle was a 2018 model diesel Land Rover Discovery Sport Auto (‘Vehicle’).
  2. [2]
    The vehicle was fitted with a Diesel Particulate Filter (‘DPF’).
  3. [3]
    The Applicant as its name suggests is a firm of solicitors, its principal and sole director is Megan Gale. Ms Gale’s partner is James Ford who happens to be a barrister in private practice. Mr Ford conducted the hearing on behalf of the Applicant.

Background

  1. [4]
    On the afternoon of 23 August 2023, Mr Ford was driving the vehicle with his wife and four year old daughter in the car along Gladstone Road West End towards Dutton Park. A red warning light activated with the message – “DPF Fault return to dealer.” The car entered “limp” mode, became sluggish and would not accelerate to over 40 km/h. Mr Ford navigated the vehicle the short distance to his home.
  2. [5]
    Mr Ford telephoned Land Rover Roadside assist and was advised not to drive the vehicle and arrange for it to be towed to Brisbane City Land Rover Service at Newstead.
  3. [6]
    On 24 August 2023, the vehicle was taken by tow truck to the Newstead service centre.
  4. [7]
    The above facts are not in dispute.
  5. [8]
    On 24 August 2023, a person, who identified himself as Cooper, advised Mr Ford that he would be looking after the vehicle during its repairs, and he would attempt to start the diagnosis as soon as possible.
  6. [9]
    The same day Mr Ford texted Cooper:

Hi, any update on QMJ3? I would really love the car back by Monday morning.

  1. [10]
    Cooper responded that the vehicle had been diagnosed and he was waiting on a parts quote before he could contact the warranty party. He sent Mr Ford an electronic quotation which indicated what the vehicle needed by way of repairs. He advised that parts would take two weeks to obtain. Mr Ford requested he be called about the technical report.
  2. [11]
    The triage report identified that the DPF and exhaust gas recirculation filter (‘EGR’) required replacing. The report[1] stated:

inclusive of engine light concern Found DPF content full visually inspected back of DPF found excessive soot Cracked catalyst check failed Requires DPF and EGR filter replaced labour 17.50.20 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) – Renew 0.5HR 02.02.02 DRIVE IN-DRIVE OUT -0.2hr 17.45.69 Low Pressure Exhaust Gas Recirculation Cooler Filter – Renew – 1.4HR 85.18.06 Read and clear fault codes -0.2hr 02.02.10 Workshop controller authorised road test 0.02 85.18.05 Powertrain adaption clear 0.1.

  1. [12]
    The triage report indicated repair costs of $14,346.13.
  2. [13]
    Cooper, who had prepared the triage report, spoke to Mr Ford. According to Mr Ford[2] Cooper advised that:

a. the DPF filter had filled up and that had damaged the engine;

b. the DPF had to be replaced because it couldn’t be regenerated, as did the timing chain and a number of other parts in the engine; and

c. about 54 parts had to be replaced.

  1. [14]
    On 30 August 2023, Mr Ford enquired whether the parts were approved. Cooper responded that most parts were approved they were just waiting on the DPF. On 31 August 2023, Ms Gale was advised by Cooper that that the extended warranty had been authorised and that parts had been approved and ordered.
  2. [15]
    On 14 September 2023, Mr Ford had an online chat with a person, who identified herself as Mandy, at Brisbane City Land Rover. His inquiry was that he wished to talk to someone about a consumer law issue with a Land Rover he purchased from Brisbane City Land Rover. He was asked what the issue was about and advised that it was to do with the DPF and major repairs about to be done on his car. Asked if his car was already booked for repair with them, he advised, “it is with you waiting for repair. I don't think it has started yet. I only just learned of the significance of the issue”. Mandy sought and was provided with details for further contact. Mr Ford requested that they give him a call before they start any repairs.
  3. [16]
    On 15 Spetember 2023, Mr Ford emailed the Respondent, the email after outlining the circumstances of the break down, inter alia, stated:

Our car has been unable to be driven since. It was towed to Land Rover service Brisbane on 24 August 2023 and has been with you since.

Land Rover told us the issue was a faulty DPF.

We’ve since learned that the car requires a minimum replacement of 54 parts and that, in addition to replacing that DPF, major engine work is required rectify damage caused by the DPF issue. It is the result of a major failure in the manufacture of the car, of which Land Rover was aware prior to our incident.

We are reasonably entitled to be safe while driving a vehicle we purchased new and have properly maintained. The car is unsafe. Is not of acceptable quality. Given the latency of this issue, its severity and the cost of the car, we are well within the rejection period for the goods.

Having known about the danger posed to us by driving a car with this major failure, or that the car would be so unsuitable for normal use, we would not have purchased it. Obviously, we would not risk our family’s safety by driving car which could so suddenly and without warning fail in this way. Quite aside from the car being of unacceptable quality, Land Rover knew this DPF issue could cause sudden and serious engine and power failure in the car. It is reprehensible that Land Rover did not notify us of this major fault and so put our safety at risk.

Rejection

For the above reasons, and pursuant to section 259 of the Australian consumer law, we reject the car.

We elect to be refunded the cost of the car, along with the interest paid open (under the finance sold to us by Land Rover). That amount is:

  • $62,564.10 paid for the car;
  • $13,313.30 in interest; and
  • $108.45 in unused registration from 24/8/2023 to 11 October 2023.

(total $75,985.85)

We require payment within 30 days. We will arrange to collect the items that remain in the car and the personalised plates in the next seven days.

  1. [17]
    The Respondent admits that the Applicant rejected the vehicle on that date.[3]
  2. [18]
    The Respondent’s Deputy Principal, Richard Moye responded the same day advising that he would investigate the matter internally and discuss the case with Landrover. I assume “Landrover” was the Australian agents for the manufacturer/supplier of the vehicle.
  3. [19]
    On 19 September 2023, Cooper advised that a technician was currently working on the vehicle.
  4. [20]
    On 20 September 2023, the Service Department advised that the repairs had been completed.[4] There is a text response from Mr Ford or Ms Gale that the service department speak to Richard Moye in sales.
  5. [21]
    Mr Moye in an email dated 20 September 2023 advised that Landrover did not consider the repairs carried out amounted to a major failure and advised that the vehicle was safe and ready for collection.
  6. [22]
    Mr Ford responded on 25 September 2023 advising that his position remained unchanged and requesting that they accept service should QCAT proceedings be initiated.[5]
  7. [23]
    The vehicle remains in possession of the Respondent as the Applicant has refused to take possession of it.

Jurisdiction

  1. [24]
    The Applicant, by way of relief, seeks a refund of the purchase price[6] of the vehicle and expenses incurred since the date of rejection of the vehicle.
  2. [25]
    The Respondent submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to provide the relief sought. Its reasoning is as follows:
    1. The present dispute is not one that falls within the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by s 50A(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘FTA’). That is because the proceeding is not one of the actions under the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) which is listed in the table in s 50A of the FTA.
    2. None of the provisions in the table confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in an action for a “refund” of goods alleged to contravene the guarantee in Part 3-2 of the ACL.[7]
  3. [26]
    A right to refund is found in s 263(4)(a) of the ACL. The Respondent submits that as the Applicant is a law firm and is represented by a barrister it is not in the same position as a lay applicant with no legal training. It submits that the decision by the Applicant to seek relief under s 263(4)(a) of the ACL was forensic and deliberate and it should not be accorded the latitude that a self-represented and legally inexperienced litigant might be allowed.
  4. [27]
    The Applicant in response submits that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. It relies upon the decision of Howarth v Biscamoss Pty Ltd,[8] a decision of member Roney KC sitting alone in the appeal jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
  5. [28]
    Subsequent decisions by Member Deane in Jarmain v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd t/as MDC Camper Trailers & Offroad Caravans[9] and Finch v IClick Group Pty Ltd t/a Beepz Auto Solutions[10] reach a contrary view. Finally, the obiter comments of Member Traves in Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37 supports the earlier decision of Howarth v Biscamoss Pty Ltd (supra).
  6. [29]
    I prefer Member Deane’s analysis in Jarmain and Finch. If necessary, I would find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order a refund in this case. However, for the reasons that appear hereunder it is not necessary for me to determine the issue. That does not preclude the Tribunal from considering other relief available to the Applicant.

Hearing

  1. [30]
    The Respondent filed a detailed response but filed no other evidence. The Respondent did not wish to cross-examine Mr Ford or Ms Gale.
  2. [31]
    Mr Ronald Arthur Grant, the Tribunal’s assessor was cross-examined by both parties.

The issues

  1. [32]
    The Applicant proposed that the following issues should be determined:
    1. What was the fault with the vehicle;
    2. As a result of the fault was the vehicle of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law;
    3. By repairing the vehicle against the Applicant’s wishes and preventing the Applicant from seeking expert evidence about the fault, did the Respondent accept the rejection of the vehicle or is it estopped from refusing to accept the rejection of the vehicle.
  2. [33]
    Further, after the evidence had been completed the Applicant submitted:
    1. the Respondent has destroyed any possibility of an independent assessment of the fault, by repairing the fault despite instructions not to;
    2. the report prepared by the Tribunal’s expert is deeply flawed and should be rejected;
    3. the Applicant’s unchallenged evidence should be received in its entirety; and
    4. the Application should be granted in full

The Assessors Report and evidence

  1. [34]
    Ronald Arthur Grant was appointed by the Tribunal to assess the vehicle and did so on 5 July 2024. He provided a report dated 9 July 2024.[11] He has 40 years’ experience as an automotive technician covering all types of vehicles. The following extracts from his report provide a background to the DPF issues.

The car subject to the claim is a fairly typical diesel powered unit, the powertrain having increased in popularity in recent years for their fuel economy and driveability. Diesel engines are however typically “Dirty” engines that produce “soot” amongst other pollutants. All manufacturers are required by law to limit soot output, hence the reason for diesel particulate filters. All diesel vehicles sold in Australia are required to have diesel particulate filters in their exhaust pipes.

In order for the DPF to stay “Clean” the cars computer will order a regeneration of the DPF from time to time which essentially makes the DPF run so hot that it burns off the soot build up. This clean is subject to certain conditions, particularly heat, which can only be met under certain conditions the least ideal being slow speed suburban driving. The ideal conditions for DPF “Regen” is highway speeds for considerable time.

To say this vehicle had no chance of keeping the DPF clean because of “City Driving” is not necessarily correct. This car has had many years of city driving without any DPF issues and has had many DPF regenerations that the owner would never have been aware of. Essentially, DPF is a very difficult engineering issue and cannot be construed as a “fault”. It should be noted that all manufacturers have the same challenges regarding exhaust gas control. The challenge is not over with “auto regenerations” either. Regenerations at very high temperatures create a byproduct, “ash”, which does not burn off and sticks to the inside of the DPF. The DPF can be replaced as is the case here, or there are now specialist repairers who can cut the DPF open and clean it and reweld it together at a considerably reduced cost to a new part.

There is now a whole industry built around the DPF conundrum, tens of thousands of “Auto” regenerations occur every day alongside “Forced” regenerations conducted by service departments when owners present with DPF lights on the dashboard. I have personally conducted many forced regen cleanouts and mostly successfully with a few with ash contents too high to recover.

  1. [35]
    Mr Grant concluded his report with the following summation:
  • This car did not have a “fault” or intrinsic design issue at time of sale.
  • This car does not have an ongoing design/operational issue compared to other cars.
  • This car should not necessarily have a DPF issue in the future, particularly given the owners are now much more well-schooled in DPF and its issues. DPF is very widely understood amongst the more enthusiastic “Diesel” user community.
  • The DPF issue is not a major failure and involves mostly peripheral components around the principal power plant which has not been broken in to. For an engine to be regarded as having experienced a “Major” failure, the failure would have to require the replacement major revolving components (crankshaft/camshaft), reciprocating components (pistons/connecting rods) or the cylinder block itself which has not been the case here.
  1. [36]
    He concluded:

The applicant's vehicle has been a reliable and trustworthy unit since its purchase back in 2018. It was not delivered, at time of sale, to the applicant with any intrinsic design or build quality issues, defects or faults connected with the current DPF issue. The required work that was carried out to the car was not unusual or major for a modern diesel “car”. The work has been performed very well and professionally by the respondent and there is no reason to believe that the car will necessarily require a repeat of the recently carried out repairs.

  1. [37]
    The Applicant has called no expert evidence. It relies upon reports in other cases and Mr Ford’s and Ms Gale’s own investigations. They hold no expertise in such matters.
  2. [38]
    I accept Mr Grant as suitably qualified, and I accept his opinion as to the cause of the mechanical breakdown.

The law

  1. [39]
    Section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to motor vehicles in respect of certain actions under the Australian Consumer Law.
  2. [40]
    The relevant provisions of the ACL are contained in sections 54, 259, 260 and 263 of Schedule 2 of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It is not necessary to set the provisions out in full. If the goods are supplied in trade or commerce and are not supplied by way of auction there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
  3. [41]
    Section 54(2) provides that goods are of acceptable quality if they are:
    1. fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
    2. acceptable in appearance and finish; and
    3. free from defects; and
    4. safe; and
    5. 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 matters in subsection (3).

  1. [42]
    The matters referred to subsection (3) are:
    1. the nature of the goods; and
    2. the price of the goods (if relevant); and
    3. any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and
    4. any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and
    5. any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.
  2. [43]
    The construction and interpretation of s 54 of the ACL was considered in Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd,[12] where Justice Lee states:

Despite the obscure drafting of other provisions of the ACL, s 54 is relatively straightforward. The continued use of the conjunction “and” in s 54(2) makes clear that goods must possess all of the qualities listed in s 54(2), to the requisite

standard, in order to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. Failure to

possess any one of those qualities will result in failure to comply with the

guarantee…

The question of whether the goods are of acceptable quality is to be answered

by reference to the quality of the goods at the time of supply…[13]

  1. [44]
    For the guarantee of acceptable quality to be determined depends upon the evidence:
    1. at the time of the supply of the vehicle on 2 October 2018; and
    2. whether the vehicle supplied by Respondent to the Applicant complied with the statutory criteria in s 54(2) of the ACL.
  2. [45]
    Section 259(2) provides that if the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure the consumer can require the supplier to remedy the failure in a reasonable time. If the supplier fails to do so, then subject to s 262 the consumer can notify the supplier that it rejects the goods and the grounds on which it rejects them. Section 262 relates to circumstances when a consumer is not entitled to reject the goods.
  3. [46]
    Section 259(3) provides that if the failure cannot be remedied or is a major failure the consumer may, inter alia, by action against the supplier recover compensation for any reduction in value of the goods below the price paid.
  4. [47]
    A major failure under s 260 occurs when 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. In the instant case the vehicle would suffer a major failure if the Applicant would not have bought the vehicle if the nature and extent of the failure was known or the vehicle was unsafe.
  5. [48]
    It should be noted as observed in by Lee J that:

… the state and condition of the vehicles at the time of supply is not determined by anything occurring after the time of supply. The fact that a defective product has continued to perform following the time of supply through to the time of trial does not defeat a finding that the product was defective at the time it was supplied.[14]

Disputed facts

  1. [49]
    The following facts are disputed:
    1. Whether the DPF failure caused the timing chain failure or vice versa.
    2. The cost of repairs.
    3. Whether the respondent went ahead with the repairs against the Applicant’s wishes and knowing that the applicant wished to carry out its own investigation.
    4. Whether the applicant’s rejection of the vehicle was justified.

Resolution

  1. [50]
    The Applicant’s case is that the fault that occurred in the vehicle which was nearly five years old and had travelled some 62,000 kms without any prior malfunction was a major fault.
  2. [51]
    Mr Ford relies upon the triage report and the costs of repairs as being evidence that there was a major fault. Mr Grant was clearly of the opinion that the fault was not a major fault and one that was not uncommon in diesel vehicles. Mr Ford in the rejection letter refers to there being major engine work required. I do not think the work carried out could be so described. In that regard I agree with Mr Grant’s assessment.
  3. [52]
    The cost of repairs is disputed. The triage report assessed the costs as $14,346.13.[15] The Respondent says that there was duplication in the costs through an administrative error and that the actual cost was $6,976.30.[16] The triage report is a preliminary estimate, and the costs were not itemised as they are in the Service Tax invoice. I accept that the actual cost was the lesser figure.
  4. [53]
    The Applicant submits that it was deprived of the opportunity of having its own expert examine the fault before the repairs were effected and that the Respondent should be estopped from refusing to accept the rejection of the vehicle.
  5. [54]
    I do not consider that the Respondent, in proceeding with the repairs, did so with any intent to deny the Applicant the opportunity of carrying out its own investigations. I consider that the Respondent, having received the Applicant’s rejection letter, had no reason not to proceed with the repairs. Initially, the Applicant represented by Mr Ford was anxious to get the vehicle repaired. It was at the time of his discussion with Mandy that he made the comment that he had only just learned the significance of the fault. Although Mr Ford may have made a request to Mandy, the chat line representative, neither Mr Ford nor Ms Gale made any formal request that repairs be stopped. 
  6. [55]
    The Applicant does not in its rejection letter request that the repairs not be carried out. The letter leaves no room for doubt the vehicle had been rejected. Obviously, the Applicant believed that it had sufficient evidence to reject the vehicle at the time it sent the email. The Applicant advised that it wanted the personalised number plates and personal items from the car. Why would the Respondent, in those circumstances, require the Applicant’s consent to carry out the repairs? On the other hand, I do not consider that in carrying out the repairs the Respondent accepted that the rejection was justified. I reject the estoppel argument.
  7. [56]
    I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the cause of the DPF failure was a fault with the timing chain, specifically the stretching of the timing chain. According to Mr Grant the cause or causes of the stretching of timing chains remains unknown.[17]
  8. [57]
    The issue is whether the cause of the timing chain stretch was a fault present at the time of supply. Certainly, according to Mr Grant it was a problem that was not uncommon in Jaguar Land Rover vehicles, although it occurred in other vehicles as well.[18]
  9. [58]
    The Applicant’s case is that at the time of the supply of the vehicle on 2 October 2018 the vehicle had a defect in the timing chain that allowed it to stretch after a period of use or there was a default in the DPF. There is no expert evidence to support either claim other than the fact that a fault became symptomatic nearly five years later and after the vehicle had travelled 60,000 kms.
  10. [59]
    If the cause of the DPF failure was the filter itself which subsequently damaged the timing chain, I do not think the ultimate outcome would be different.
  11. [60]
    I do not consider the fault to be a major failure, as the fault can be remedied within a reasonable time and the vehicle was not rendered unsafe. I do not accept as reasonable that the Applicant’s claim that the limp home mode created an unsafe situation.
  12. [61]
    The “reasonable consumer” in s 54(2) of the ACL is assessed objectively.[19]
  13. [62]
    In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd[20] Wheelahan J in discussing s 260(a) of the ACL said:

The text of s 260(a) of the ACL directs attention to the question whether the goods would not have been acquired by the reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure, and not to the different question whether an individual consumer acted reasonably in rejecting the goods. In my view, for the purposes of evaluating whether a failure is a major failure for the purposes of s 260(a), a reasonable consumer who purchases an RV is to be taken to have some degree of tolerance for certain types of failure. This is owing to at least three features.

  1. [63]
    His Honour then described those three features which I will summarise as follows:
    1. The legislation assumes that not every failure to comply with a guarantee will be a major failure such as if the failure to comply can be remedied within a reasonable time;
    2. The nature of the goods is relevant. Motor vehicles, yachts, and even bicycles, are manufactured from a range of component parts, many of which may be capable of easy replacement or repair in the event of some fault. The reasonable consumer will purchase a (vehicle) accepting that there is a reasonable prospect that some components of the (vehicle) may have to be adjusted, repaired, or replaced within a manufacturer’s warranty period.
    3. The reasonable consumer will accept that the process of production of certain complex goods, such as (motor vehicles) can never be perfect.
  2. [64]
    Essentially, the legislation requires a level of tolerance in the consumer. As Wheelahan J has said: “In those cases that are not clear-cut, the resolution of the issue will turn upon questions of fact, degree, and value judgment”.[21]
  3. [65]
    An affirmative answer to question of whether there has been a major failure is much easier to reach in a case such as Lawless v Austral Pty Ltd trading as Brisbane City Land Rover[22] where there have been many occurrences of the fault over a relatively short period of time. In the instant case there is no prior history of the fault occurring except on the one occasion. The mechanical breakdown occurred in this vehicle after it has travelled 60,000 kms and after nearly five years of use.
  4. [66]
    I am of the opinion that the vehicle supplied by Respondent to the Applicant complied with the statutory criteria in s 54(2) of the ACL. It functioned without fault for nearly five years and for over 60,000 kms.
  5. [67]
    I find that the fault that has been identified in this case would not have caused a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure, to not have acquired the motor vehicle.
  6. [68]
    I find that at the time of purchase the vehicle was fit for all the purposes for which it was acquired, acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe and durable.
  7. [69]
    The vehicle has been repaired under warranty. The Applicant was inconvenienced by being without a car for several weeks but otherwise has not suffered damage requiring compensation.
  8. [70]
    I dismiss the application.

Footnotes

[1]  Respondent’s Form 60, Schedule A, item 16; MKG Bundle pages 14-17.

[2]  Statement of J Ford, 8 August 2024, paragraph 13.

[3]  Response and Counter Application filed 22 February 2024 Schedule A line 21.

[4]  Email 20 September 2023 MKG bundle p. 40.

[5]  MKG bundle p. 40.

[6]  Comprising deposit, principal and interest paid as part of the financial package.

[7] Jarmain v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd t/as MDC Camper Trailers & Offroad Caravans [2022] QCAT 375 (‘Jarmain’), [24]-[43]; Finch v IClick Group Pty Ltd t/a Beepz Auto Solutions [2023] QCAT 55 (‘Finch’), [22]-[33]. Cf Howarth v Biscamoss Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 72 (‘Howarth’), [4]-[7]; Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37 (‘Sazdanoff-Haynes’), [88]-[99].

[8]  [2022] QCATA 72.

[9]  [2022] QCAT 375.

[10]  [2023] QCAT 55.

[11]  Exhibit 1.

[12]  (2022) FCA 344.

[13]  Ibid, [164]-[165]; see also Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182.

[14] Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (2022) FCA 344, [168].

[15]  MKG bundle p.17.

[16]  MKG bundle p. 43.

[17]  Transcript 1-15 lines 25-30.

[18]  Transcript 1-13 lines 30-35.

[19] Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited v Williams (2023) 296 FCR 514, [42]-[43].

[20]  [2020] FCA 1672.

[21]  Ibid, [43].

[22]  [2021] QCAT 297.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover

  • Shortened Case Name:

    MKG Legal Group Pty Ltd v Austral Pty Ltd t/as Brisbane City Land Rover

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 232

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member King-Scott

  • Date:

    06 Jun 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] FCA 1672
Cite 2 - [2020] FCA 1672
Finch v IClick Group Pty Ltd t/a Beepz Auto Solutions [2023] QCAT 55
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 55
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 55
Cite 3 - [2023] QCAT 55
Howarth v Biscamoss Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 72
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCATA 72
Cite 2 - [2022] QCATA 72
Cite 3 - [2022] QCATA 72
Jarmain v Market Direct Group Pty Ltd t/as MDC Camper Trailers & Offroad Caravans [2022] QCAT 375
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 375
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 375
Cite 3 - [2022] QCAT 375
Lawless v Austral Pty Ltd trading as Brisbane City Land Rover [2021] QCAT 297
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 297
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 130 FCR 182
Cite 2 - (2003) 130 FCR 182
Sazdanoff-Haynes v MLS Wholesales Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 37
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 37
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 37
Cite 3 - [2023] QCAT 37
Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams (2023) 296 FCR 514
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2023) 296 FCR 514
Cite 2 - (2023) 296 FCR 514
Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] FCA 344
Cite 2 - [2022] FCA 344
Cite 3 - [2022] FCA 344

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.