Alexandre v Tsalapataris [2026] QCAT 103

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Alexandre v Tsalapataris [2026] QCAT 103 PARTIES: KELLY ALEXANDRE (first applicant) ALEX ALEXANDRE (second applicant) v CHRIS TSALAPATARIS T/A GC CAR WHOLESALE (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: MVL195-24 MATTER TYPE: Motor vehicle matter DELIVERED ON: 19 February 2026 HEARING DATE: 17 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member King-Scott ORDERS: The Tribunal orders: The respondent pay the applicants the sum of $6,591.30 by 4:00 pm 17 March 2026. 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 – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – failure to give rejection notice APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The applicants purchased a Kia Carnival 2012 model from the respondent on 22 March 2024 for the sum of $9,900. -- 1 of 6 -- 2 [2] As the vehicle was more than 10 years old and had over 200,000 km recorded on its odometer a category B warranty applied under the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014. (MCDA Act). That warranty was good for 1,000 km and/or one month after taking possession.1 The applicants also took out an extended warranty. [3] The statutory warranty warranted the vehicle as being free from defects at the time of taking possession and warranted that any defects in the vehicle reported during the warranty period would be repaired by the warrantor free of charge. [4] If the buyer of a warranted vehicle believes the vehicle has a defect the warrantor of the vehicle is obliged repair it under the MCDA Act but the buyer must give a warrantor written notice of the defect referred to as a defect notice before the end of the warranty period.2 The buyer is also required, if the warranted vehicle was 200 km or less from the warrantor’s place of business when the defect notice is given, to deliver the vehicle to the warrantor to repair. [5] If the warrantor refuses to accept that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty or if it accepts that it is covered but fails to repair the defect then this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter. 3 [6] The applicants also rely upon the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and that it failed to comply with section 54 of the ACL. Background [7] Ms Alexandre took possession of the vehicle on 22 March 2024. There were some initial problems with the battery which the respondent attended to. On 25 March 2024 Ms Alexandre reported problems with the passenger door which would not open from the inside. That was attended to and rectified by the respondent on 2 April 2024. [8] Ms Alexandre communicated with the respondent through Facebook Messenger. On 8 April 2024, she again contacted him with three problems. They were: (a) A clunking noise from the front wheel; (b) Excessive exhaust smoke, and (c) Water leaking into the boot area. [9] The respondent’s response to two of the issues was that they were not warranty issues despite a notification occurring within the 28 day warranty period. He attributed the smoke to the unusual humid conditions. The leaking boot to possibly a rubber seal being loose. He did not address the issue of the clunking noise from the front wheel. [10] The message satisfies the requirement to give notice in writing under the Electronic Transactions (Qld) Act 20014 and fulfills the requirement of a defect notice under the MDCA Act. [11] The exhaust smoke worsened and the applicants contacted the extended warranty provider who arranged for the vehicle to be inspected by Night and Day Autocare. A 1 Section 3B of Schedule 1 of MDCA Act. 2 S. 9 MDCA Act. 3 S. 13 MDCA Act 4 S. 11 & 12 -- 2 of 6 -- 3 mechanic attended the applicants’ residence on 7 June 2024 and inspected the vehicle. It was then taken to Night and Day Autocare for further assessment. Further investigation revealed serious underlying conditions including a blown head gasket. The cost of repairing all the faults in the vehicle, they advised would have exceeded the purchase price, although that advice is not in the written report. [12] The report from the mechanic relevantly was as follows: We then conducted a cylinder head checked, which revealed that exhaust fumes were entering the cooling system. This confirms Howe believes that the vehicle has a blown head casket. We suspect this issue has been present for a long time, as evidenced by the buildup of sludge and coolant stains on the external parts of the exhaust. [13] Photos attached to the report exhibited damage to the cooling system as well as an extraordinary amount of sludge on the oil filter. [14] The applicants emailed responded on 3 July 2024 with this information and referring to the Defect Notice given on 8 April 2024. They advised that the extended warrantor had declined to cover the repairs and advised them to take the matter up with the respondent. In the email they asked the respondent which garage he would prefer to repair the vehicle. The applicants received no response to this email. [15] I am satisfied that the applicants have given proper notice, and the respondent has failed or refused to accept the defect as a defect covered by the statutory warranty. Consequently, I am satisfied that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. [16] The respondent says that the applicants did not give the defect notice within time and, therefore there is nothing he could do. He maintains the vehicle was fit for purpose when the applicants took possession. That appears to be his response. He has not filed any material in the proceeding and has not complied with any directions other than to participate in a compulsory conference. Australian Consumer Law [17] The applicants also seek relief under the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (FTA). Under s 50A(1) of the FTA a person may apply to the tribunal for orders under s. 50A (2) (all three elements to be satisfied): (a) Under a provision of the Australian Consumer Law2 as listed in the table at the end of s 50A; and (b) Relating to a motor vehicle; and (c) Seeking an amount of relief or value of other relief of not more than $100,000. [18] The relevant guarantee is set out in s 54 of the ACL. Goods such as a motor vehicle are of acceptable quality if they are: (a) fit for all the purposes for which a motor vehicle of the kind sold is commonly used; and (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and (d) safe; and -- 3 of 6 -- 4 (e) durable.5 [19] Acceptable quality involves all of the above factors, such that if one factor is absent, the goods may not be of acceptable quality. The provision requires an enquiry by the Tribunal as to: (a) what a reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the state and condition of the motor vehicle (including any hidden defects) known at the date of the hearing, not necessarily at the point of sale, (b) would regard as acceptable having regard to price, nature of the motor vehicle, any representations made about the motor vehicle prior to sale, and any other relevant circumstance relating to the supply of the motor vehicle. [20] Even taking account of that age of the vehicle and the number of kilometres it had travelled I am of the opinion that the vehicle was not free form defects nor was it fit for the purpose. Unfortunately, the applicants have never advised the respondent that they reject the goods. Relief and Damages [21] The ACL makes provision for remedy of the breach of guarantees as follows: 259 Action against suppliers of goods (1) A consumer may take action under this section if: (a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to the consumer; and (b) a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 3 2 (other than sections 58 and 59(1)) is not complied with. (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 in a reasonable time- the consumer may: (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) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection. (3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may: (a) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection; or 5 S.54 (2) Schedule 2 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 -- 4 of 6 -- 5 (b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods. (4) The consumer may, by action against the supplier, 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. (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier. (6) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3). … 260 When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure (1) A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if: (a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or … (e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe [22] I find that the defects with the vehicle would have constituted a major failure. No reasonable consumer, aware that head gasket was defective and would require major service within months of purchase and that together with the repairs to the wheel would involve cost of at least half the purchase price, would have acquired the vehicle. [23] The applicants say the mechanic’s report further states that the cost for repairing these defects will exceed the value of the vehicle. As stated earlier that does not appear in the report nor in the invoices. Ms Alexandre may have been told this, but it is not in evidence. The estimated cost of repairing the blown head gasket was $2,846.806 and the clunking wheel was $$2,500.00 although part of that would relate to a service of the vehicle.7 Other defects requiring repair have not been particularised. [24] At the time the vehicle was put in for service on 7 June 2024 the odometer reading was 203,250 kms it had travelled some 4,646 kms. Ms Alexandre reports that without the repairs she felt unsafe driving with her children. The failure to resolve matter has caused the applicants financial hardship and in the end they had to purchase another car on a credit card. The vehicle remains parked on the street in front of their complex has not been driven since August 2024. For this reason, they had to maintain the registration of the vehicle and the registration fee of $1,109.50 forms part of the claim. [25] This section provides for recovery of consequential loss, which: (a) is assessed by reference to facts that are proved to exist at any time from the failure to comply with the guarantee, until the time of judgment; (b) includes an adverse effect on a person’s financial position; 6 See Night and Day Autocare estimate 7 June 2024 7 See Night and Day Autocare estimate 20 June 2024 -- 5 of 6 -- 6 (c) can be recovered if the loss or damage is: (i) caused by the failure to comply with the guarantee; and (ii) the loss or damage was reasonably foreseeable, that is the loss or damage was not too remote. and (d) it is not essential that the consumer retains title to the goods. [26] In addition to a refund of the purchase price the applicants claim damages under s. 259 (4) of the ACL for the cost of maintaining registration of the vehicle. [27] Had the applicants stored the vehicle at a commercial cost that, in my opinion, would have been recoverable, so the cost of registering the vehicle whilst it remained in the street is, in my opinion, also recoverable. Disposition [28] I find that the applicants were entitled to reject the vehicle for a major breach of the guarantee as to acceptable quality. However, they have not given any notice in accordance with ss. 259 and 262. Their claim is limited to the costs of repair as there is no evidence that the repairs exceed the purchase price of the vehicle. [29] Unfortunately, I can only order the respondent to pay the applicants the sum of $6,591.30 comprising repairs of $2,846.80 and $2,500.00 registration fee of $1,109.50 and filing fee of $135. -- 6 of 6 --