Farrar v Moreton Bay Automotive Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 104

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Farrar v Moreton Bay Automotive Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 104 PARTIES: BRIAN FARRAR (applicant) v MORETON BAY AUTOMOTIVE PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: MVL061-24 MATTER TYPE: Motor Vehicle Dispute DELIVERED ON: 27 February 2026 HEARING DATE: 19 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Alex Nelson ORDERS: The Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute filed on 2 April 2024 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – JURISDICTION – where applicant seeks damages for loss of income during the period he was awaiting repair of his vehicle – whether the guarantee under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) applied – whether there was unreasonable delay Australian Consumer Law (Queensland), s 62, s 267 Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Thomas Kennedy, Dealer Principal REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This proceeding was commenced on 2 April 2024 by an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute, pursuant to which the Applicant sought $24,100 for loss of income during the period of time that his speciality motor vehicle was awaiting repair. He conducts -- 1 of 6 -- 2 a business as a driving instructor, so the vehicle has two operational sets of foot pedals. A suitable “courtesy vehicle” to replace it was not available. [2] The Applicant identifies that his claim is “for compensation due to the failure to repair my work vehicle within a reasonable timeframe” and he relies upon s 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) incorporating provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) which are to be found in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). He does not appear to have grappled with which particular section of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) might give rise to the claim that he wants to prosecute. During the hearing, he settled upon his claim proceeding under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) which provides as follows: 62 Guarantee as to reasonable time for supply If: (a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer; and (b) the time within which the services are to be supplied: (i) is not fixed by the contract for the supply of the services; or (ii) is not to be determined in a manner agreed to by the consumer and supplier; there is a guarantee that the services will be supplied within a reasonable time. [3] Alleging that the Respondent has breached that guarantee, the Applicant seeks damages under s 267 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) which is in the following terms: 267 Action against suppliers of services (1) A consumer may take action under this section if: (a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, services to the consumer; and (b) a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 3 - 2 is not complied with; and (c) unless the guarantee is the guarantee under section 60--the failure to comply with the guarantee did not occur only because of: (i) an act, default or omission of, or a representation made by, any person other than the supplier, or an agent or employee of the supplier; or (ii) a cause independent of human control that occurred after the services were supplied. (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: -- 2 of 6 -- 3 (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) terminate the contract for the supply of the services. (3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may: (a) terminate the contract for the supply of the services; or (b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the services below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the services. (4) The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damage 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) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3). [4] The Applicant claims the loss of income for 47 days, from 9 January 2024 when the vehicle’s air conditioning stopped working through to 28 February 2024 when the vehicle was in fact repaired by Ultratune Morningside and available for him to use in his business. His evidence of loss of income was scant, comprising as it did evidence of him being paid a sum of money for a particular week, and him extrapolating that across the 47 days of his claim period. That document would not satisfy me that this singular week of income was representative of his usual weekly income. [5] During the hearing, the Applicant revised his claim to start on 11 January 2024, being the day on which he rang the Respondent and booked his vehicle in for the diagnostic testing on 31 January 2024. He says from that time, the Respondent “became the primary carer of the situation”. He says that a reasonable time for the problem to have been diagnosed and the repair to be effected was three (3) days. [6] The Respondent contends that it has acted reasonably at all times, has not engaged in unreasonable delay and has kept the Applicant informed with reasonable communication about the progress of repairs. It too seems not to have grappled with the question of what the relevant cause of action is. Jurisdiction [7] The Tribunal is empowered to hear and determine this dispute in its original jurisdiction pursuant to s 9 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), and s 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (‘Fair Trading Act’). Does the guarantee in s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) apply, and was there any unreasonable delay? [8] On 13 June 2022 the Applicant purchased a used 2020 model Suzuki Swift from a second hand motor dealer at Wynnum. The odometer reading was 11,050 km. [9] On 9 January 2024, the vehicle’s air-conditioning ceased to work. [10] On 10 January 2024 the Applicant took the vehicle to Ultratune at Morningside to have it inspected. Little is known about the steps that Ultratune took on that occasion, -- 3 of 6 -- 4 but the Applicant says that they identified a problem with the vehicle’s air- conditioning compressor, although they were unable to locate a replacement part within their network. The Applicant took his vehicle elsewhere, in part because of Ultratune’s inability to source parts, but also because he preferred to have the vehicle repaired under warranty if possible. That is a clear indication of his understanding that the repair of his vehicle was something that needed to be done in stages, even if he in fact wanted those stages all to be completed in the shortest possible timeframe: (a) first, diagnose the problem; (b) second, ascertain whether the vehicle could be repaired under warranty; (c) third, repair the vehicle. First Stage [11] On 11 January 2024 the Applicant rang Zupps Suzuki at Mt Gravatt, but that business was unable to conduct a diagnostic assessment until 21 February 2024. The Applicant then rang the Respondent and was able to book his vehicle for a diagnostic inspection to be conducted on 31 January 2024. [12] I find that there was a contract between the Applicant and the Respondent pursuant to which it was agreed that the diagnostic services were to be provided on, or at least not before, 31 January 2024. [13] The guarantee under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) does not arise where there is a contractually agreed timeframe for the delivery of services, which I find there was. Accordingly, the s 62 guarantee did not arise, at least in relation to that first stage. [14] There being no guarantee, and thereby no breach of guarantee, no liability can be said to arise under s 267 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) during the period 11 January 2024 to 31 January 2024. [15] For the sake of completeness, I also find that any delay between the Applicant booking his vehicle in for diagnostic services to be conducted by the Respondent and the actual provision of those diagnostic services, being just 20 days, was not an unreasonable delay, especially when regard is had to the fact that another Suzuki motor dealer could not offer any earlier booking dates. [16] Many service providers such as general practitioners, surgeons, dentists, lawyers, panel beaters and the like operate their businesses on the basis that bookings are required. There is often a lag in time between a booking being made and the services being able to be delivered. It is not economical, nor is it reasonable to expect, that businesses will employ a sufficient number of staff to cater to all customers without any delay at all. In some businesses, delay is inevitable. Section 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) is not a guarantee against any delay, it is only a guarantee that there will not be “unreasonable” delay in circumstances where the time for delivery of service is not otherwise agreed, and that will vary according to the circumstances on a case by case basis. Second Stage [17] When the Respondent inspected the vehicle on 31 January 2024, the odometer reading was perhaps just short of 86,608 km. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 [18] Having diagnosed the vehicle as requiring work to be undertaken in relation to its air- conditioning system, the Respondent then advised the Applicant that the work might be covered by the vehicle manufacturer’s express warranty, but that would require approval from Suzuki Queensland. [19] The Applicant agreed that warranty enquiries would be made because he preferred that his vehicle would be repaired at no cost to him. There was no agreed timeframe for those enquiries to be finalised, but that is understandable in circumstances where the approval was required from a third party and was not within the control of the Respondent. [20] In the end, that approval was communicated to the Applicant just four business days later. On 6 February 2024 the Applicant contacted Suzuki Queensland directly and was informed that the compressor had been approved for repair under warranty. [21] I find that was not an unreasonable delay. Even if it had been, it was not a delay in the Respondent providing services to the Applicant and for that reason the guarantee under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) does not arise in any event. Third Stage [22] On 15 February 2024 the Respondent informed the Applicant that his vehicle could be booked in for the repairs to be effected on 29 February 2024. The Applicant, initially at least, accepted that situation and booked his vehicle in. [23] Finding himself unwilling to wait that long, the Applicant made enquiries about the availability of servicing appointments (as opposed to repair appointments) with the Respondent, and he was able to book a service on 19 February 2024. The Applicant contends that his ability to get an earlier booking for a service is evidence of the fact that the Respondent prioritizes servicing of vehicles over the provision of warranty repairs, but I do not accept that. [24] The Respondent explained that it employed 15 mechanics, only two of whom were licensed to work on air-conditioning units. I accept that explanation for why the Applicant was able to secure a servicing appointment earlier than an appointment to repair his vehicle air-conditioning unit. [25] When the Applicant arrived at the service appointment on 19 February 2024, he informed the Respondent that he in fact needed repair work done. The Respondent acquiesced where many businesses might have justifiably turned him away. There was no implied guarantee under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) in relation to the period between 15 February and 19 February 2024. Even if there had been, the timeframe included just one business day and that was not at all unreasonable. It was in fact shorter than the contractually agreed timeframe for the Respondent to deliver its repair services. [26] On 20 February 2024 the Respondent told the Applicant that repair under the warranty was no longer approved, later explaining that the compressor had obvious signs of damage. A photograph in evidence shows what appears to be a gouge across a drive belt pulley on the the electronic clutch hub assembly, exposing raw steel. [27] The Applicant has at least inferred that the damage to the electronic clutch hub assembly was caused by the Respondent, but the Respondent identified that it uses a specialist tool to remove the belt from the pulley without the possibility of damage, and that tool is not available outside of the Suzuki network. That leaves the obvious -- 5 of 6 -- 6 inference that the pulley was damaged at some earlier point in time. Regardless, I am not at all satisfied that it was the Respondent that damaged the pulley on the electronic clutch hub assembly. [28] The Applicant agreed to go ahead with the work on the basis he would pay privately. On 21 February 2024 the Respondent told the Applicant that the electronic clutch hub assembly was not the actual cause of the problem with his vehicle’s air-condition and that a whole new compressor was required. [29] The Respondent made arrangements for a new compressor unit to be fitted to the vehicle on the originally planned repair date, 29 February 2024. Had the work proceeded as planned, no guarantee would arise under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) because of the contractual arrangement which fixed the time for the delivery of the service. I would in any event have found that the delay between diagnosis and repair was not an unreasonable one. [30] In the end, the repair did not proceed as planned because the Applicant sourced his own replacement compressor online and he arranged for that part to be fitted by Ultratune Morningside. [31] I find that there was no guarantee arising under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland). [32] I find that there was no unreasonable delay by the Respondent in delivering its services to the Applicant. [33] Accordingly the Tribunal orders that the Applicant – Motor Vehicle Dispute is dismissed. -- 6 of 6 --