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

Quaglieri v Bi-Rite Electrical[2016] QCATA 170

Quaglieri v Bi-Rite Electrical[2016] QCATA 170


Quaglieri v Bi-Rite Electrical [2016] QCATA 170


Giovanni Quaglieri



Bi-Rite Electrical



APL212 -16




17 October 2016




Senior Member Stilgoe OAM


1 November 2016




  1. Leave to appeal granted.
  2. Appeal allowed.
  3. The decision of 24 June 2016 is set aside.
  4. The proceeding is returned to the tribunal for rehearing, before a differently constituted tribunal.


APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTIO LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where consumer purchased washing machine and extended warranty – where consumer claimed persistent fault within extended warranty period – where retailer denied responsibility – where tribunal found retailer’s insurer liable for extended warranty obligations – where tribunal dismissed claim – whether retailer liable under extended warranty – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294



G Quaglieri in person


W Skapa for Bi-rite Electrical


  1. [1]
    Giovanni Quaglieri bought a washing machine from Bi-Rite Electrical Browns Plains in January 2012. The washer had a 2-year manufacturer’s warranty. Mr Quaglieri bought an extended 3-year warranty, so the washer was covered by some form of warranty for five years from purchase.
  2. [2]
    In April 2015, Mr Quaglieri noticed that the washer’s spin cycle was noisy and out of balance. The washer was inspected and repaired in May 2015.
  3. [3]
    In August 2015, Mr Quaglieri could not get an ‘extra high spin’ on bulky or large loads. The washer was inspected in September but no fault was found.
  4. [4]
    In October 2015, Mr Quaglieri reported the same problem. The washer was taken away, parts were replaced and the washer was returned.
  5. [5]
    In November 2015, Mr Quaglieri again reported problems with the spin cycle. No fault was found.
  6. [6]
    In December 2015, Mr Quaglieri reported the same problem. No fault was found although the repairer noted that it might be a problem with the washer’s software, which was not covered under the extended warranty.
  7. [7]
    Mr Quaglieri filed a claim for a refund of the cost of his washer. The tribunal dismissed his claim. He wants to appeal that decision.
  8. [8]
    Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.[1] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[2]
  9. [9]
    Mr Quaglieri says the tribunal failed to consider Bi-Rite’s contradictory statements. He says that his washer should be replaced because there is a rule that, if there are four claims for the same fault, the washer will be replaced. He says Bi-Rite lied under oath, and didn’t serve a response to his claim. He says Bi-Rite could not prove the washer was working according to the specifications.

Preliminary matters

  1. [10]
    Mr Quaglieri handed up to the tribunal both the washer’s owners’ manual and the extended warranty brochure. The tribunal handed them back before handing down its decision.[3] These documents formed essential evidence for the tribunal’s decision-making process. They should have been marked as exhibits and retained on the tribunal file.

The grounds of appeal

  1. [11]
    In reading the transcript, it became clear to me that leave to appeal should be granted, and the appeal allowed, but for none of the reasons advanced by Mr Quaglieri.
  2. [12]
    The tribunal dismissed Mr Quaglieri’s claim because it formed the view that Mr Quaglieri’s rights, if any, were against the warranty provider.[4] Mr Skapa, for Bi-Rite, told the tribunal that an ‘outside company’ provided the warranty.[5]
  3. [13]
    However, a careful reading of the customer care plan shows that Mr Skapa was misinformed. The customer care plan ‘is a warranty and service product supplied by Us’. ‘We, Us, Our’ refer to the selling retailer whose name is on the original invoice, not the insurer. That means Bi-Rite. The ‘outside company’ is involved only because there is a separate indemnity agreement.
  4. [14]
    Mr Quaglieri was entitled to claim the details of the customer care plan against Bi-Rite. The tribunal failed to consider his claim in light of the terms of the customer care plan. The tribunal was in error.
  5. [15]
    Leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal allowed. The decision of 24 June 2016 is set aside. The proceeding is returned to the tribunal for re-hearing by a different tribunal. So there is no doubt, the customer care plan, the washer warranty card, and the owner’s manual shall form part of the tribunal file.


[1]   QCAT Act s 142(3)(a)(i).

[2] Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3].

[3]  Transcript page 1-21, line 42; page 1-23, lines 25 – 36.

[4]  Transcript page 1-24, line 46 to page 1-25, line 1.

[5]  Transcript page 1-19, lines 14 – 24.


Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Quaglieri v Bi-Rite Electrical

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Quaglieri v Bi-Rite Electrical

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 170

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

  • Date:

    17 Oct 2016

Appeal Status

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

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.