Carr v Carmart Caboolture [2025] QCAT 288

• [1] The applicant is Nathan Stuart Carr. The respondent is Memobrook Pty Ltd trading as Caboolture Carmart.
• [2] The applicant seeks relief pursuant section 50A of the Fair-Trading Act 1989 (Qld), contending that the respondent failed to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality provided in the Australian Consumer Law, as found in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (ACL).
• [3] The applicant purchased a second-hand Mitsubishi Triton GLX 2010 model from the respondent on 20 May 2023. At the time of purchase, the odometer of the vehicle showed 295,264 kilometres. Prior to the purchase the respondent had obtained a roadworthy certificate which noted no defects regarding the mechanical operation of the vehicle.
• [4] The applicant drove the vehicle for approximately 3 months and gave evidence that the vehicle 'ran well' from the date of purchase until late August 2023.
• [5] The respondent gave evidence that in late August 2023 he was driving to Gladstone from Brisbane when he heard a loud bang and pulled over to the side of the road in Morayfield. The vehicle had overheated. It was towed to the workshop of JPS Mechanical. The radiator was replaced under a repair warranty provided by a third party (Xtreme).
• [6] The day after the overheating incident the applicant took the vehicle to a Midas service centre at Lawnton, who advised after testing that a 'combustion leak' had been identified comprising a leak at the cylinder head. A quote to replace the entire engine (which was said to be necessary) was for a total of $17,954.00.[1]
• [7] The applicant then complained to the respondent, who advised him that the 1,000-kilometre/one month statutory warranty provided for the purchased vehicle[2] had expired. At the time of the engine failure event in question, being 3 months after the purchase, the vehicle had travelled approximately 5,000 kilometres since the date of purchase.
• [8] In November 2023 the applicant took the vehicle to Le Mans Motors, a mechanical workshop, who also advised that they suspected "a blown head gasket or crack in the cylinder head or block". The applicant gave evidence that he had not driven the vehicle since the events of late August 2023, at which time the cracked cylinder head was first identified.
• [9] The applicant gave evidence that he was not able to point to any fact or circumstance which indicated that the problem of the cracked cylinder head was present at the time that he purchased the vehicle. Evidence given by a mechanic on behalf of the respondent, Mr Sheppard, was that if such a fault had existed at the time that the vehicle had been purchased then it would not have been possible to drive the vehicle for the period of 3 months. Such a fault would prevent the vehicle from operating. Mr Sheppard's evidence was that the likely cause of the crack in the cylinder head was the vehicle overheating whilst being driven (likely due to a crack in the radiator causing the cooling system to fail, and such overheating in turn causing the crack in the cylinder head).
• [10] The applicant stated when questioned by the tribunal as to whether there was any evidence to support a finding that the fault was present at the time of purchase that he could not identify such evidence.

• [11] The applicant must prove that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality within the meaning of schedule 2, section 54(2) of the ACL, when the vehicle was supplied by the respondent.
• [12] Goods will be of acceptable quality if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied, acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe and durable as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with their state and condition would regard as acceptable.[3] The relevant matters for determining whether a reasonable consumer would regard goods as acceptable are set out in section 54(3) of the ACL. The time for determination of whether goods are of an acceptable quality or not is when the goods are supplied to the consumer.[4]

• [13] I consider that there is insufficient evidence that the subject vehicle was of unacceptable quality at the time that the respondent supplied it to the applicant.
• [14] In fact, the predominant evidence before the tribunal is that the vehicle was of acceptable quality when supplied, and that the fault complained of i.e., the overheating and cracking of the cylinder head, occurred on or about 23 August 2023 after the vehicle had travelled approximately 5000km since purchase. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a latent defect in the vehicle when supplied, which caused the engine problems at the date of failure.
• [15] The vehicle in question was approximately 13 years old and had travelled approximately 295,000 km when purchased. The spontaneous failure of the engine in such a vehicle is not predictable and is dependent on the vicissitudes of treatment and care by previous owners. The fact that the vehicle experienced engine problems when it did does not give rise to an axiomatic inference that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality at the time it was supplied.
• [16] The applicant has failed to persuade the tribunal that the respondent did not comply with the statutory guarantee to supply a vehicle which was of acceptable quality, Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

[2] Being a class B warranty pursuant to s3B of the schedule to the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014.

[3] Australian Consumer Law schedule 2 s54(2)

[4] Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151