Andrulis v Beaudesert Auto Group Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 340

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Andrulis v Beaudesert Auto Group Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 340 PARTIES: JOSIAH ANDRULIS (applicant) v BEAUDESERT AUTO GROUP PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: MVL085-24 MATTER TYPE: Motor vehicle matter DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 4 August 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lee Benjamin ORDERS: Pursuant to s 48(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Respondent must pay $49,101.30 to the Applicant, by bank transfer, on or before 4:00pm on 19 August 2026. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where Respondent non-compliant with Tribunal directions – where Respondent has not duly filed and served its materials – where Applicant willing and able to proceed – where further delay will cause inconvenience and disadvantage – whether respondent caused unnecessary disadvantage – whether discretion should be exercised to make a final decision in the proceeding Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 3, s 45, s 48, s 62 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented -- 1 of 4 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 4 September 2023, the Applicant purchased a Mahindra S11 4WD 2022 model vehicle (Vehicle) for $41,380 from the Respondent. The Applicant took delivery of the Vehicle on 8 September 2023. [2] On 18 September 2023, the Applicant noticed that the Vehicle was “shuddering” when being driven. Over September 2023 to November 2023, the Vehicle was returned to the Respondent on at least five separate occasions, for repairs and servicing due to break and “shuddering” issues, among other problems. It appears that, despite the Respondent’s numerous attempts to address the identified defects, issues remained unresolved by mid to late November 2023. [3] On 28 November 2023, the Applicant advised the Respondent, in writing, that he rejected the Vehicle on the basis of a breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The Applicant demanded a full refund of the purchase price, to be paid by 22 December 2023. The Respondent did not refund the purchase price. [4] On 23 February 2024, the Applicant’s solicitor wrote to the Respondent (via its directors) reiterating the Applicant’s rejection of the Vehicle and demand for a refund. The Applicant’s solicitor advised the Respondent that the Applicant would arrange for delivery of the Vehicle to the Respondent on 26 February 2024. The Respondent does not appear to have responded to the Applicant’s solicitor. [5] On 26 February 2024, the Vehicle was delivered to the Respondent. [6] On 23 April 2024, the Applicant filed an application for a motor vehicle dispute in the Tribunal. The application was accompanied by detailed submissions and materials. [7] On 8 May 2024, the Applicant filed affidavit of service in the Tribunal, evidencing that the application had been duly served on the Respondent. [8] On 30 April 2024, the Tribunal directed, among other things, the Respondent to file a response to the Applicant’s application by 17 June 2024. According to the Tribunal’s records, the Respondent did not file a response and did not otherwise comply with the Tribunal’s direction. The Applicant says that a response was never served on the Applicant. [9] On 10 July 2024, the Tribunal directed, among other things, the Respondent to pay $600 towards the cost of a motor vehicle assessor, to be appointed, by 24 July 2024. According to the Tribunal’s records, the Respondent did not pay towards the cost of the motor vehicle assessor and did not otherwise comply with the Tribunal’s direction. The Applicant says that he has no record to the Respondent paying the fee. [10] On 26 September 2024, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to either: (a) pay a further $600 towards the cost of a motor vehicle assessor; or (b) engage his own motor vehicle assessor. [11] On 20 November 2024, the Applicant obtained a motor vehicle assessor report. The Tribunal’s directions dated 10 July 2024 directed the Respondent to file their evidence by 28 days after receiving the assessor’s report. According to the Tribunal’s records, the Respondent did not file a response and did not otherwise comply with the Tribunal’s direction. The Applicant says that a response was never served on the Applicant. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [12] On 13 December 2024, the Applicant filed and served a detailed statement. In the same, the Applicant increased his claim to $51,303.19,1 which was particularised as follows: (a) Vehicle purchase price: $41,380 (b) Legal fees: $4,146 (c) Tribunal filing fee: $379.50 (d) Tribunal motor vehicle assessor fees: $1,200 (e) Department of Transport & Main Roads Registration: $427.50 (f) RACQ insurance: $1,568.30. [13] On 9 April 2025, the Respondent effectuated a change of registration for the Vehicle from the Applicant to the Respondent, with the Department of Transport and Main Roads. [14] On 25 May 2026, the Tribunal issued a notice of hearing for the application on 4 August 2026. [15] On 28 July 2026, the Respondent filed an application seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 4 August 2026. I note that the Respondent did not serve the application on the Applicant. The Respondent says that the “representative / employee for Salters Cars has to have a medical procedure carried out on this day… No other person is available to attend in Mel Fisher's absence for the hearing due to being overseas.” A confidential medical certificate was attached to the application. The adjournment request was refused. [16] On 3 August 2026, the Respondent filed a further application seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 4 August 2026. I note that the Respondent did not serve the application on the Applicant. The Respondent says that it filed a response to the Applicant’s application on 11 July 2024. The Respondent also says that it filed a response to the motor vehicle assessor report on 23 December 2024. The alleged filings were attached to the Respondent’s 3 August 2026 email. As already indicated, the Applicant and the Tribunal have no record of receiving these filings. The Respondent also says that “the [vehicle] assessor fee was paid late but absolutely was paid but if that is not the case we can pay the money today.” As already indicated, the Applicant and the Tribunal have no record of the payment. The further adjournment request was refused. [17] On 4 August 2026, the Tribunal commenced a hearing in the application. The Applicant was ready and willing to proceed. The Respondent did not appear to be ready and willing to proceed. The Respondent contends that it had complied with the Tribunal’s directions and referred its correspondence dated 3 August 2026. The Applicant says, and I accept, that he has never received the Respondent’s materials. Despite the Respondent’s contentions, I am not satisfied that the Respondent has duly filed and served its materials. [18] The Applicant has been waiting since April 2024 for his application to be determined. He has complied with the Tribunal’s directions. He has filed expensive and responsive 1 I note that the computation for the particularised items is $49,101.30, not $51,303.19. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 materials. The Applicant contends, and I accept, that he and his family have been significantly inconvenienced and financially disadvantaged by not having a vehicle since February 2024. He also says, and I accept, that further delay in resolving this matter will continue that inconvenience and disadvantage. [19] The objects of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Act) are, among others, to have the Tribunal deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.2 To my mind, to permit further delay in determining this matter is completely inconsistent with the objects of the Act. [20] The Respondent’s conduct in not filing and serving its materials in accordance with Tribunal directions,3 not paying the motor vehicle assessor fee, seeking adjournments, not serving applications on the Applicant, and not acting quickly in relation to this application4 has, in my judgement, unnecessarily disadvantaged the Applicant. The Respondent does not appear to have an excuse, reasonable or otherwise, for its conduct. [21] Section 48(2) of the Act empowers the Tribunal, on its own initiative, to make a final decision in a proceeding in an applicant’s favour where a respondent acts in a way that causes unnecessary disadvantage, including by, among other things: (a) not complying with a Tribunal order or direction without reasonable excuse; or (b) not complying with this Act, an enabling Act or the rules; or (c) asking for an adjournment as a result of conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). [22] In my view, the Respondent’s conduct fits hand in glove with s 48(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I have decided to exercise my discretion to make a final decision in the proceeding in the Applicant’s favour. I order that the Respondent must pay $49,101.305 to the Applicant, by bank transfer,6 on or before 19 August 2026. [23] In acting under s 48(2) of the Act, I have had regard to whether the Respondent: (a) is familiar with the Tribunal’s practices and procedures; (b) has the capacity to understand and act on the Tribunal’s orders and directions; and (c) is acting deliberately. [24] In my view, the Respondent is, as an established commercial enterprise with affiliates as past litigants in the Tribunal, familiar with the Tribunal’s practices and procedures, and has the capacity to understand and act on the Tribunal’s orders and directions. Regardless of whether the Respondent’s conduct is deliberate or inadvertent, the result has been to cause disadvantage. 2 Section 3 of the Act. 3 As required by s 62(4) of the Act. 4 As required by s 45 of the Act. 5 I note that $49,101.30 is the sum of the amounts particularised in paragraph 12 of these reasons. 6 The Applicant should provide his current bank account details to the Respondent by 4:00pm on 10 August 2026. . -- 4 of 4 --