Dunne v Myntup Pty Ltd t/as Motoco RV Townsville [2026] QCAT 317

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Dunne v Myntup Pty Ltd t/as Motoco RV Townsville [2026] QCAT 317 PARTIES: RUSSELL JOHN DUNNE (applicant) v MYNTUP PTY LTD T/AS MOTOCO RV TOWNSVILLE (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: MVL265-23 MATTER TYPE: Motor vehicle matter DELIVERED ON: 14 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 15 April 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lumb ORDERS: The Application for motor vehicle dispute filed on 5 December 2023 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where applicant purchased a new caravan from respondent dealer – where variety of issues with caravan – whether caravan failed to comply with the statutory guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) – where claim for refund of the purchase price or for replacement caravan – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the proceeding – whether failure to comply was a major failure – whether applicant rejected the caravan within the rejection period – where some alleged issues related to subsequent repair work carried out by dealer – whether claim for failure to comply with statutory guarantee to exercise due care and skill – whether failure to exercise due care and skill established – whether loss established Australian Consumer Law Queensland, s 54, s 60, s 259, s 260, s 262, s 267, s 268 Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 16, s 50A -- 1 of 11 -- 2 Barton v Bridgeman & Anor [2020] QDC 16 Doonan v Mahindra Automotive Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] QCAT 231 Strain v Townsville Auto Group Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 534 Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc (formerly Bertram Yachts) and Another (No 4) (2018) 362 ALR 702 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] On 20 January 2020, the Applicant (‘Mr Dunne’) purchased, new, from the Respondent (‘the Dealer’), a New Age Oz Classic caravan (‘the Caravan’). [2] By an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute filed on 5 December 2023 (‘the Application’), Mr Dunne claimed against the Dealer: (a) his ‘full money back’, being the whole of the purchase price paid of $104,885.000 (in essence, a refund of the amount of the purchase price); or (b) ‘a new van with all of the same extra’s’ [sic] (that is, a replacement caravan). [3] Mr Dunne claims that the Caravan had a number of faults as addressed below. [4] By Tribunal Directions dated 8 January 2024, it was directed that the Application was amended to reflect the value of the amount claimed by Mr Dunne as $100,000.00. By operation of that Direction, Mr Dunne’s claim was brought within the monetary jurisdiction of the Tribunal ($100,000.00) to deal with actions relating to a motor vehicle under the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘the FTA’)1. The bases of claim [5] The Application alleged, relevantly, (a) that the ‘multiple faults’ identified amounted to a ‘breach of the implied warranty of merchantability’; and (b) the faults posed ‘potential safety hazards’. [6] In my view, having regard to the matters raised in the Application and the material filed by Mr Dunne, including an expert engineering report from Mr Cass, Mr Dunne’s case raises two separate factual bases of claim, namely: (a) ‘faults’ or defects arising from the quality of the Caravan as supplied (‘the supply issue’); 1 See s 50A(1)(c). -- 2 of 11 -- 3 (b) damage said to result from repair work performed by the Dealer in 2023 (‘the repair issue’). [7] With respect to the supply issue, and consistently with the Dealer’s written submissions, I will proceed on the basis that such matters raise an alleged failure to comply with the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality under s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law Queensland (which I will refer to as ‘the ACL (Qld)’). This guarantee applies to a relevant supply of goods. [8] The ‘Australian Consumer Law text’ (as defined in s 15 of the FTA), as in force from time to time: (a) applies as a law of ‘this jurisdiction’ (that is, Queensland jurisdiction); (b) as so applying, is a part of the FTA.2 [9] With respect to the repair issue, I consider that the matters raised by Mr Dunne concern the provision of services (being the repair work) provided by the Dealer. In turn, it is my view that the applicable consumer guarantee in this context is the guarantee in s 60 of the ACL (Qld), namely that the services will be rendered with due care and skill. Jurisdiction and power to grant relief sought [10] With respect to the supply issue, for the reasons I set out in Strain v Townsville Auto Group Pty Ltd,3 I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a refund if such an entitlement is established by Mr Dunne.4 [11] With respect to the repair issue, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order damages if such an entitlement is established by Mr Dunne.5 [12] The Dealer submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make the alternative order sought by Mr Dunne, namely the replacement of the Caravan. I consider that the matter raised by the Dealer involves a question of the Tribunal’s power rather than jurisdiction. In my view, the Tribunal has no power to order that the Dealer provide a replacement caravan. An order in those terms is not an order that the Tribunal may make pursuant to s 50A(2) of the FTA. [13] I now turn to the supply issue. The supply issue [14] There is no dispute that, and I find that: (a) the Dealer supplied, in trade or commerce, ‘goods’ (namely, the Caravan) to Mr Dunne as a ‘consumer’; (b) the guarantee under s 54 of the ACL (Qld) applied to the supply of the Caravan. [15] Additionally, in order to establish an entitlement to a refund, I consider that Mr Dunne must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that: 2 FTA s 16. 3 [2025] QCAT 534, [12]-[16]. 4 FTA s 50A (including Table); ACL (Qld), s 259. 5 FTA s 50A (including Table); ACL (Qld), s 267. -- 3 of 11 -- 4 (a) the Caravan was not of acceptable quality pursuant to s 54 at the time of supply, even if the defects did not manifest themselves until after supply;6 (b) if, and to the extent that, the Caravan was not of acceptable quality, the failure to comply was a ‘major failure’ pursuant to s 260 of the ACL (Qld); (c) if the failure was a major failure, Mr Dunne notified the Dealer that he rejected the Caravan and the grounds for rejection, pursuant to s 259(3) of the ACL (Qld); (d) if the notification of rejection was given by Mr Dunne, the notification was given before the ‘rejection period’ ended pursuant to s 262 of the ACL (Qld). [16] In addressing these matters, I find that, on any view of the evidence, Mr Dunne did not purport to reject the Caravan at any point prior to the filing of the Application and service of the Application on the Dealer. [17] In circumstances where Mr Dunne sought a refund or replacement of the Caravan in the Application and identified the various alleged defects referred to in Part F of the Application, I am satisfied that the filing and service of the Application amounted to a purported rejection of the Caravan (and notification of the grounds for the rejection) consistently with my reasons in Doonan v Mahindra Automotive Australia Pty Ltd & Anor7. As to the service of the Application, an affidavit of service filed by Mr Dunne on 20 December 2023 deposes to the posting of the Application on 19 December 2023. Although I have not been able to identify any evidence as to the date of receipt of the Application by the Dealer, I find that it could not have been earlier than 20 December 2023 and I will adopt that date for the purposes of determining the date of rejection. [18] I also consider that the Mr Dunne was not required to return the Caravan as a pre- condition to the rejection of the Caravan.8 [19] I deal with the repair issue below. However, for present purposes, I observe that any damage caused by the repair services performed by the Dealer cannot support a failure to comply with s 54 of the ACL (Qld) because any consequence of the repair work would not involve defects that existed at the time of supply. [20] In January 2023, Mr Dunne took the Caravan to the Dealer to repair issues with the hand brake and the rear door. Between the date of purchase and the date Mr Dunne dropped off the Caravan in January 2023, the items of complaint of Mr Dunne (as identified in the Application) were as follows: (a) the suspension of the Caravan had been fitted with the wrong size coils and shock absorbers; (b) the compliance plate was labelled incorrectly; (c) the tow ball hitch was in the incorrect position; (d) the park brake cable was incorrectly fitted (it was locked on); 6 Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc (formerly Bertram Yachts) and Another (No 4) (2018) 362 ALR 702, [264]. 7 [2026] QCAT 231, [68]-[73]. 8 Barton v Bridgeman & Anor [2020] QDC 16, [210]-[222]. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 (e) three of the windows had faulty manufacturing resulting in trapped moisture in the windows; (f) the door handle was faulty and would not close and the replacement handle would not lock; (g) the water pump was broken and unusable; (h) the large black plastic wheel insert was cracked both sides; and (i) the table leg was rusted. [21] Even taking the most favourable view to Mr Dunne of when the rejection period ended, I find that it could not have been later than, say, seven days after 25 September 2023 when Mr Dunne collected the Caravan after the September 2023 repairs were carried out. Even adopting this view, Mr Dunne’s purported rejection of the Caravan on 20 December 2023 was well after the rejection period had ended. [22] It follows that the purported rejection was not given before the rejection period ended pursuant to s 262 of the ACL (Qld), and the claim for recovery of the purchase price by Mr Dunne fails. [23] For completeness, I will address whether each of the items raised by Mr Dunne evidenced a lack of acceptable quality and, if so, whether it existed at the time of supply and, if so, whether the non-compliance amounted to a major failure. [24] With respect the Caravan’s suspension, I find that: (a) the wrong coil springs were fitted to the suspension with the result that the shock absorbers were carrying most of the load;9 (b) this resulted in the shock absorbers leaking and weeping; (c) the Dealer has failed to establish that the failure of the shock absorbers was attributable to the modifications made to the to the trailer drawbar (by relocating the tow coupling mounting) which were undertaken by a third party for Mr Dunne (I note that the Dealer did not call expert evidence on this issue); (d) the wrong coils existed at the time of supply; (e) given that the wrong coils resulted in the issues with the shock absorbers, and the importance of the suspension system to the use of the Caravan, the fitment of the wrong coils amounted to a major failure (in that the Caravan would not have been acquired by reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure to comply with the guarantee); (f) the coils and shock absorbers were replaced in late January 2022 (close to two years before Mr Dunne purported to reject the Caravan). [25] With respect to the compliance plate, I find that: (a) it was labelled incorrectly; (b) it was labelled incorrectly at the time of supply; 9 See the email from Torque Tyres & Trailer Spares dated 4 February 2022 (I note that Mr Dunne was referred to Torque Tyres & Trailer Spares by New Age). -- 5 of 11 -- 6 (c) the mislabelling did not render the Caravan not of acceptable quality; (d) in any event, it did not amount to a major failure; (e) the compliance plate was replaced. [26] With respect to the location of the tow ball hitch, I consider this is an issue in respect of which expert evidence would have been of assistance to the Tribunal. I find that Mr Dunne ordered the Caravan with a recessed ball coupling. The Dealer pointed to Australian Standard AS4177.3–2004, contending that 50mm tow balls fitted in accordance with the standard must be able to be adjusted to a height between 350mm and 460mm, measured from the ground to the centre of the ball when the Caravan is fully loaded. In his submissions filed on 8 March 2024, Mr Dunne accepted that the Caravan’s tow hitch was built as per the manufacturing and build specification, but the ‘major issue’ was that this specification did not suit Mr Dunne’s vehicle and, consequently, the Caravan ‘towed very dangerously behind our car’. Whilst the tow ball coupling on Mr Dunne’s motor vehicle was at a height which meant that the Caravan was not level whilst being towed, in circumstances where the Caravan was supplied as per the agreed specifications, I am not satisfied on, the balance of probabilities, that the Caravan was not of acceptable quality in this regard. I find that the towing issue experienced by Mr Dunne resulted from the height of the tow ball on Mr Dunne’s vehicle (before modification). [27] With respect to the brake cable, I accept that Mr Dunne experienced an issue with the brake locking on. The Dealer’s evidence suggests that the workshop manager ‘felt that the damage caused to the internal handbrake mechanism was from the handbrake constantly being pulled too tightly’. On the basis of the evidence in respect of this issue, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the issue existed at the time of supply. In any event, I accept that the Dealer repaired this issue by loosening the handbrake tension slightly and moving the backing plates from the rear axle to the front axle at no charge to Mr Dunne. This appears to have been a straightforward repair job. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that, even if the handbrake issue had existed at the time of supply, it would have amounted to a major failure pursuant to s 260 (in particular, s 260(1)(a), which provides that a failure to comply is a major failure if the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure). [28] With respect to the windows trapping moisture, I am satisfied that this amounted to a defect in the windows which existed at the time of supply of the Caravan to Mr Dunne. I also accept that this defect resulted in the Caravan not being of acceptable quality. However, I am not satisfied that this defect was of such a nature as would render the failure to comply a major failure. [29] With respect to the complaint that the door handle was faulty and would not close and the replacement handle would not lock, I accept the Dealer’s evidence that: (a) the interior door handle had broken off one week after delivery and this was rectified when Mr Dunne returned for the 1,000 km service; (b) Mr Dunne raised the subsequent issue of being unable to lock the main door in the second half of 2022 (and this was inspected in early 2023 when the repairs were carried out, as addressed below). -- 6 of 11 -- 7 [30] With respect to the interior door handle, given the timing of the issue emerging, I am satisfied that the issue existed at the time of supply and that it amounted to a failure to comply with the statutory guarantee of acceptable quality. However, given the minor nature of it I am not satisfied that it amounted to a major failure. [31] With respect to the subsequent issue in 2022, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that this was an issue that existed as at the date of supply of the Caravan. [32] With respect to the broken water pump, the Dealer does not dispute this occurred. It was fixed under warranty. I am not satisfied, on the evidence presented, that this was an issue that existed at the time of supply. In any event, even if it did exist, I find that it would not have constituted a major failure. [33] With respect to the cracked black plastic wheel insert, the Dealer’s evidence was that: ‘This was and still is a concern with the particular mould used on the rear of the New Age caravan.’ On the basis of this evidence, I am satisfied that the cracking of the mould was a defect which existed at the time of supply. However, given the minor nature of it, I am not satisfied that it amounted to a major failure. There is no dispute that it was replaced under warranty. [34] With respect to the rusted table leg, I am not satisfied that this was an issue that resulted from a defect at the time of supply; rather, I consider it to be a maintenance issue. In any event, I am not satisfied that it amounted to a major failure. [35] In summary, the only item raised by Mr Dunne that, in my view, gave rise to non- compliance with the statutory guarantee which amounted to a major failure, was in relation to the fitment of the wrong coils. I am not satisfied that the balance of the other items, either individually or collectively, amounted to a major failure. With respect to the major failure concerning the coils, given that the coils were replaced in early 2022, I find that the rejection period ended more than 18 months prior to the purported rejection by Mr Dunne. [36] It follows from the above that Mr Dunne has failed to establish an entitlement to a refund in relation to the supply of the Caravan. The repair issue [37] Section 60 of the ACL (Qld) provides: If a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill. [38] As noted above, in January 2023, Mr Dunne took the Caravan to the Dealer. The hand brake was locked on and the rear door was not locking properly. The hand brake was repaired. The door lock was replaced. However, the door could not be refitted in alignment. The Dealer ordered from New Age a new doorframe and door. There was a delay of months before the replacement parts were supplied by New Age. [39] The term ‘services’ is (broadly) defined in the ACL (Qld) to include ‘any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce’. I consider that the repair services performed by the Dealer on the Caravan constituted ‘services’ within the meaning of that term. [40] Mr Dunne collected the Caravan on 12 May 2023 following the repairs. The next morning Mr Dunne noticed that both the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the -- 7 of 11 -- 8 Caravan were ‘buckled’. Mr Dunne also noticed that the right-hand side at the front window could be moved in and out 50mm. [41] The Dealer picked up the Caravan from Mr Dunne on 14 May 2023. [42] The Dealer’s response was that the sides of the Caravan were made with ‘Alucobond’ material and, as had been experienced by some other customers, the material reacted to direct sunlight by ‘rippling’ but it would return to its normal form when back in shade. The Dealer requested that New Age replace the sides due to Mr Dunne’s concerns and the fact that there was an area near the roadside window that did have movement between the sheet and the wall structure. Both sides were replaced by the Dealer with the support of a New Age team member who flew up from Melbourne. During the course of replacement, it was found that the movement on the roadside panel was because a twin core wire had become caught between the timber frame and the Alucobond panel during fitment at the factory with the result that this did not allow the silicone adhesive to adhere to the sheet as it should have done. [43] Following the further work, Mr Dunne collected the Caravan from the Dealer on 18 September 2023. Upon returning home, Mr Dunne found that the fridge in the Caravan had two cracks in it and the door was pushed out of shape. Mr Dunne raised this issue with a New Age representative who then made arrangements for the replacement of the fridge in Bundaberg. I understood Mr Dunne to contend that this cracking was also attributable to the alleged incorrect jacking of the Caravan during the repair work undertaken by the Dealer. [44] The question that arises is whether Mr Dunne has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the issues identified by Mr Dunne in May and September 2023 were the result of the repair work carried out by the Dealer in 2023 and, if so, involved a failure to exercise due care and skill on the part of the Dealer. [45] The report of Mr Cass notes that Mr Cass inspected the Caravan on 20 July 2025. After this inspection Mr Cass requested a laser measurement assessment of the chassis of the Caravan to be conducted to ascertain the amount of deformation. A laser measurement report was prepared by Mr Ned Lodge dated 19 July 2025. The scope of Mr Lodge’s report was to measure the vertical deviation along the length of the left-hand side and right-hand side main chassis members of the Caravan starting from the rear of the Caravan. Mr Lodge reported that each of the chassis members exhibited ‘hogging’ deformation. This can be described as a ‘convex’ or ‘bell curve’ deviation from the horizontal plane of the chassis. On the left-hand side, the maximum vertical deviation was 15mm at a point approximately 2,786mm from the rear end. On the right-hand side, the maximum vertical deviation was 16mm at a point approximately 2,812mm from the rear end. After referencing those measurements, Mr Cass opined that the measurements confirmed that the chassis of the Caravan had suffered ‘plastic deformation’ of the main rails on both sides of the Caravan. [46] Mr Cass expressed the view that the Caravan structure had been compromised and there was evidence in the photographs of external wall cladding damage and misalignment of the entry door. Mr Cass expressed the following conclusion: The bending strength of the chassis has been exceeded resulting in plastic deformation of both main chassis rails as a result of the caravan being jacked at incorrect locations . -- 8 of 11 -- 9 [47] The jacking locations were identified by Mr Cass by reference to marks on the underside of the chassis rails on the photograph identified as ‘FIG 1’ in Mr Cass’s report. As best I can describe the respective locations, the rear jacking point identified appears to be approximately halfway between the rear of the tyre well and the rear end of the Caravan, and the front jacking point appears to be approximately two thirds of the distance between the front of the tyre well and the front of the caravan (my best estimate is approximately 900mm from the front end of the Caravan) [48] There is no dispute that neither of the identified jacking points was a jacking point approved by the manufacturer. The approved points appear to be immediately adjacent to the tyre well of the Caravan (as indicated by a photograph at page 30 of the Dealer’s response and by the photograph identified as ‘FIG 5’ to the report of Mr Cass). [49] The Dealer filed a report from Mr Lindsay Stone, Mechanical Engineer, which is undated but refers to an inspection of the Caravan on 11 August 2025. The report of Mr Stone covers a number of issues and is convenient to set out the relevant contents: Thorough visual inspection revealed the chassis had no apparent damage, including the draw bar and the cross members forming the floor frame. There was one small apparent crack at the edge of an outrigger weld which was assessed as non-critical as it appeared to be only in the galvanising layer and possibly emanating for a cold weld junction. The caravan has been modified with a raised hitch platform fully welded on top of the draw bar, which appears to be of good engineering practice and is certified by an Approved Person (refer to Modification Plate attached) The revised coupling position may not be within the recommended height as per AS 4177, but was done for the high 4WD tow vehicle coupling. The caravan appeared to be loaded for normal use and was only supported on the tandem wheels and the jockey and therefore the normal weight distribution as in an on-road condition. A domestic laser sighting beam of suitable accuracy was used to get an initial measurement of chassis frame straightness on one side (kerb-side). The under-floor equipment boxes on the roadside did not allow laser beam access for this method. The accuracy was also limited by the user methodology and roadside location. The kerb-side measurements indicated a typical convex /bell curve deflection of approximately 13 mm at the floor level over a distance of nominally 5 meters. That equates to 2.5 mm per lineal metre. This is considered acceptable for a semi-offroad caravan of this size when loaded. I have been advised that the chassis frames are constructed to within a tolerance of 3mm over the floor length in a bare-frame unloaded condition. Normal caravan body loading will deflect the frame to approximately 10-15 mm and this has been measured on a same model new caravan, where the unloaded deflection was measured by the same laser beam method at 8-11 mm (left- and right-hand sides) over the full 6.3 metre floor frame lengths. This confirms the normality of the deflection measured on the customer’s loaded in- service van. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 Also stress calculations have revealed the floor frames are operating within the Elastic / Non-deforming range of the RHS steel under full ATM loading plus a dynamic loading multiplier of 4 times, as per normal suspension design criteria. This means there should be no permanent bending of the frames in normal use. The anecdotal use of caravan jacks at the chassis extremities increasing chassis bending is false as the jacking points mentioned would effectively straighten the chassis from its natural convex operating shape. The four standard 950 kg coil suspension springs on the ‘Cruisemaster’ axle group have been upgraded to the 1250-1400 kg versions which would be considered unnecessary for the GTM rating of 3200 kg and hence transfer more shock loading to the chassis. This modification has the potential to increase chassis bending, depending on the road conditions. As the caravan axle group is not of a Load Sharing design the coupling height is critical to the stresses in the chassis due to load transfer to either suspension set. Non-level operating would increase the flexure in the chassis outside of its normal range. [50] In his written opening statement, Mr Dunne sought to challenge Mr Stone’s report on various grounds. These matters included, amongst others, the manufacturer’s chassis tolerance. Given the technical issues raised, it is unfortunate that neither party saw fit to make their expert witness available at the hearing of this matter. For example, as I read Mr Stone’s report and the contentions made by Mr Dunne, one material difference appears to be that Mr Stone has interpreted the tolerance of 3mm over the floor length to be referable to the bare frame of the chassis in an unloaded condition (that is, without the Caravan body loaded on the chassis) whereas, as I understand Mr Dunne’s case, Mr Dunne has interpreted the specification to refer to the chassis with the Caravan body loaded on it but with the Caravan itself in an unloaded condition, that is, without things such as a gas bottle and other contents. This is not addressed by Mr Cass. I accept the expert evidence of Mr Stone in preference to Mr Dunne’s contentions. In particular, I accept the evidence that the deflection measured on Mr Dunne’s (loaded) Caravan was within normal limits. [51] On the basis of Mr Stone’s opinion, I reject Mr Cass’s opinion that the bending strength of the chassis has been exceeded as a result of the Caravan being jacked at the locations identified by Mr Cass. In Mr Stone’s view, jacking the Caravan at the jacking points identified would effectively straighten the chassis from its natural convex operating shape. Mr Dunne did not adduce evidence from Mr Cass in response, nor (as noted above) did he make Mr Cass available at the hearing. I accept the evidence of Mr Stone in this regard as it appears to me to be inherently logical that the forces applied by lifting the caravan near the respective ends of the chassis would tend to generate forces (at the approximate mid-point) in the opposite direction to the convex or bell-shaped curve identified by Mr Lodge. [52] In final addresses, Mr Dunne appeared to doubt, if not outright reject, Mr Cass’s opinion that the deformation was caused by jacking the Caravan at the points identified by Mr Cass.10 Mr Dunne posited an alternative theory that the bending of the chassis was caused by jacking somewhere in the middle of the Caravan.11 10 Transcript T1-95 line 28 - T1-96 line 36. 11 Transcript T1-96 line 33 - T1-97 line 4. -- 10 of 11 -- 11 However, there is an absence of expert evidence to support this theory. I also observe that jacking the Caravan near the middle of the Caravan would be generally consistent with location of the manufacturer’s recommended jacking locations adjacent to the tyre well of the Caravan. [53] Having regard to the evidence as a whole, and in particular that of Mr Stone, I find that Mr Dunne has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Dealer failed to exercise due care and skill in performing the repair work, much less that any such failure caused deformation of the chassis. [54] For completeness, I am also of the view that even if Mr Dunne had established those matters, he would not have been entitled to the refund he claims. Unlike the supply of goods, no corresponding right of rejection is available in the event of non-compliance with a statutory guarantee arising out of the supply of services. Even if a major failure had been established in respect of the services, a consumer’s remedies include the termination of the contract for the supply of the services12 or compensation for any reduction in the value of the services below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the services13 (neither of which has any potential application in the present case). Additionally, a consumer may 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.14 Even if Mr Dunne had established a failure to exercise due care and skill by the Dealer in performing the repair work, it would be necessary for Mr Dunne to establish the loss or damage suffered by reason of the failure to comply with the statutory guarantee. In my view, this would require evidence of either the reasonable cost to repair any proven loss or damage resulting from the repair work or the difference in value (if any) of the Caravan in its pre-repair condition and in its post- repair condition. Mr Dunne did not adduce evidence to support a finding on loss or damage on either basis. [55] It follows that Mr Dunne’s claim in relation to the repair work fails. Order [56] For the above reasons, it is ordered that the Application for motor vehicle dispute filed on 5 December 2023 is dismissed. 12 ACL (Qld), s 267(3)(a). 13 ACL (Qld), s 267(3)(b). 14 ACL (Qld), s 267(4). -- 11 of 11 --