1. The respondents accept the chronology of events below, although they dispute what or who caused the need for repairs and argue that the applicant has been exaggerating the caravan's problems.
2. On the day the applicant picked up the brand new caravan, 20 April 2022, he noticed water inside, on the floor and on the drop step. He traced the leak source to a TV antenna winder.[1] He returned immediately to Gateway Caravans for repairs, and they fixed the leak within two days ('the first repair').
3. Between late April and September 2022, the applicant and his wife undertook at least two trips, a weeklong trip in Victoria, and later a return trip to Brisbane, Queensland, from early June to late August 2022. There were no visible water leaks during either of these trips.
4. On 26 September 2022, Mr Van Haren and his wife commenced what was intended as a four-week trip to New South Wales ('the first cancelled trip'). On 29 September 2022, while staying in Moss Vale, Mr Van Haren noticed water leaking into the caravan from the front window.
5. The applicant tried to slow down or stop the water from coming in and soaking the bed, using various means, relevantly by putting some duct tape on the outside of the caravan, and some tape on the wall lining inside. After three nights, noting that further rain was forecast, the applicant and his wife terminated their travel and returned home.
6. Immediately after returning home, Mr Van Haren contacted Gateway Caravans and brought the caravan in for repairs, that lasted about six days, to the front window and awning (second repair).
7. On 15 October 2022, Mr Van Haren and his wife started another trip to New South Wales with an expected duration of three or more weeks ('the second cancelled trip'). A week after the trip started Mr Van Haren noticed water running on the inside of the kerb-side window of the caravan and soaking the bed located on that side of the caravan, and for a second time water entering from the front window. Mr van Haren and his wife cut this trip short and returned home to arrange further repairs.
8. The applicant brought the caravan for a third repair ('the third repair') in late October 2024. In addition to the leaks, Mr Van Haren drew Gateway Caravans' attention to 12 other alleged defects - which he claims were present from the beginning - and asked that they be repaired.[2] The caravan was with Gateway Caravans for two weeks. After collecting the caravan, the applicant did not observe any further leaks straight away, but he returned the caravan to Gateway Caravans in late November 2022 because some of the additional defects had not been fixed (fourth repair).
9. It is not relevant exactly which of these additional alleged defects had not been rectified straight away; the important fact is that the caravan had to be brought back for another round of repairs.
10. Almost a year later, in early October 2023, Mr Van Haren and his wife embarked on what was supposed to be a weeklong trip in Victoria. About 50 km into that journey, they stopped at a rest area and noticed water on the centre table[3] and beneath the front window of the caravan,[4] as well as water flowing from the window frame and down the wall. Mr Van Haren pulled away some of the padding around the beds and noticed the areas underneath were damp and mouldy. Mr Van Haren decided to cancel the trip and return home (this was a third cancelled trip). At that time or around that time, he also noticed what he thought was a leak under the fridge.
11. After returning home, Mr Van Haren informed the Club RV Group - who by this point had taken over maintenance of caravans purchased from Gateway Caravans - of the leaks, but did not take the caravan to them for repairs straight away. A few days later, while removing belongings from the tunnel boot of the caravan, he noticed water had also entered that area. After some weeks, he took the caravan in on 8 December 2023 ('the fifth repair').
12. The respondents accept that on this occasion the repairs were major: removal and replacement of the front window, removal of the interior front wall panelling, replacement of timbers in and around the window frame, and the installation of a new lining. An external vent for the fridge was removed and resealed. Mr Van Haren collected the caravan on 9 January 2024.
13. One of the water entry points was a loose light at the front of the caravan, under the front window ('the front light'). According to the applicant's chronology, he first noticed the front light being loose on 10 October 2023. The Club RV Group, in its defence, stated that when Mr Van Haren brought the caravan in the front light 'was coming away from the chequer plate cladding'[5] and Chris Bolitho - who was employed by the RV Group at the time and gave evidence at the hearing - was able 'to rock the worklight up and down finding it highly irregular unless the light had been knocked or tampered with in some way'.[6]
14. After completing the fifth repair, the Club RV Group subjected the caravan to water testing before telling Mr Van Haren that it was fixed and he could pick it up. The testing started with simulating light rain with the hose and progressively increase the water pressure to a jet of water hitting the window and front of the caravan at a right angle.
15. Mr Van Haren took the caravan home. On 19 January 2024, before packing for another planned trip, he performed his own testing, using his garden hose, to identify whether the caravan continued to leak. It did. He cancelled the planned trip (this was a fourth cancelled trip) and returned the caravan to the Club RV Group that day for repairs ('the sixth repair'). When he picked it up on 22 January 2024, he was informed that the last leak had been caused by an incorrectly sealed or damaged grab handle.
16. On 23 January 2024, the applicant conducted water testing at his property and again found a small run of water coming from the front window as well as from the wall trim above the bed base on the driver's side.
17. As a consequence, on the same day Mr Van Haren rejected the caravan and demanded a full refund.
18. After receiving the applicant's rejection email, on 1 February 2024 David Lilley and Chris Bolitho from the Club RV Group conducted a water test at the applicant's property and agreed there were two leaks. While the respondents described these leaks as minor[7], during the course of the hearing David Lilley told the Tribunal that he and Mr Bolitho were 'dumbfounded', 'gobsmacked' or 'flabbergasted' to find yet more leaks in late January 2024.
19. As Mr Van Haren's rejection was not accepted in 2024 and still has not been accepted, he has retained possession of the caravan. He claims to have noticed water inside the front light on 12 April 2024, water running from the window frame on 6 May 2024 and water dripping from the wall trim on 10 May 2024.
20. In addition to the further leaks, since rejecting the caravan Mr Van Haren has identified a number of issues which he claims were additional defects.[8] In late June 2025 Mr Van Haren inspected the caravan and took photos showing mould and cracking on the bed base of the left side bed, and what appears to be water damage on the bed frame of the right bed base.[9]

1. Section 54 of the ACL provides a guarantee of 'acceptable quality' in relation to goods supplied to consumers by a person who supplies in trade or commerce.[10]
2. The applicant contends that a reasonable consumer would not have bought the caravan because there was a failure to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality and that failure was a 'major failure' as defined in the legislation. He contends that the caravan is not of acceptable quality because it is not
   • - fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied;[11] and
   • - free from defects;[12] and
   • - durable[13]

to such an extent that a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the caravan (including any hidden defects of the goods), would not regard as acceptable having regard to the matters the nature of the goods[14] and the price of the goods.[15]

1. The applicant submits that the common use of caravans is precisely what he used the caravan for, namely, to provide shelter and to serve as a form of mobile accommodation. In light of the persistent and recurrent leaks, the caravan was not fit for that purpose. The applicant experienced significant disruption to three trips and had to cancel a total of four trips. He took the caravan in for leak repairs five times and each time it leaked again, including after the last round of repairs.
2. In relation to the claim that the caravan is not free from defects, the applicant contends that the leaks are one such defect, but there are other defects:

(a) the list of items identified in October 2022 - when he brought the caravan in for a third repair (listed in footnote 2 of the Reasons); and

(b) the list with items identified after January 2024 (listed at footnote 8 of the Reasons).

1. In relation to the claim that the caravan was not durable, the applicant claims that the serious leaks started developing in September 2022, about five months after the caravan was acquired and used normally. The leaks kept reoccurring for over a year afterwards. He contends that a caravan should last longer than two years, that is, it should not have developed so many leaks.
2. The applicant argues that in deciding whether the caravan is or is not fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied, free from defects and durable, the reasonable consumer would have regard to the nature of the goods - a caravan in this case - and the price. The 'nature' of a caravan can be described as mobile accommodation that can be transported on roads of variable quality. The price of more than $76,000 was significant and the reasonable consumer would expect that it would last for a number of years, if not decades; or, put another way, the reasonable consumer would expect that a $76,000 caravan would last more than two years.
3. The applicant submits that the above leads firmly to a conclusion that the caravan was not of acceptable quality at the time of supply on 20 April 2022.

1. If I were to accept that the caravan was not of acceptable quality, the next question would be whether the above failure amounted to a 'major failure' as defined in the legislation. Relevantly, a failure to comply with a consumer guarantee is a major failure if:
   • - the goods (the caravan) would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure;[16] or
   • - the goods (the caravan) are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose.[17]
2. In relation to the first of the two subsections, the applicant accepts that each individual issue or defect, by itself, would not constitute a major failure. For example, there was a problem with the camera at the back of the caravan (included in the list in footnote 8) which was both minor and easily repaired. A reasonable consumer in April 2022, if they knew that the camera would cause issues down the track, would still have purchased the caravan.
3. The applicant says what makes the failure a major failure is both the sheer number of minor defects and the leaks that persisted after five repairs.[18] The leaks had significant consequences of serious disruption to trips: three trips were commenced and cancelled, a fourth one was cancelled before it began.
4. Counsel for the applicant noted that while the legal test involves a reasonable consumer, not the actual individual who acquired the product, the applicant's exasperated email to the Club RV Group in February 2024 eloquently summarises the reasons why there was a major failure:

[I am] not going to have it repaired again. i think 6 times (in total so far), is enough... I am concerned about how many more times it will need repair, how much longer we [ Mr Van Haren and his wife] will be unable to use it, and how many trips we'll have to defer/abort/cancel, how many more times we'll have to fully unpack/empty our belongings, clean the caravan after repairs, then repack. cancel bookings, lose deposits. try to obtain repairs away from home, while it is raining... you have already needed to replace some of the timber framing and internal panelling, and the caravan is not quite 2 years old.

1. The applicant claims the goods are substantially not fit for purpose due to the leaks because they could not easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose. As a matter of fact, the applicant says, the leaks were never remedied.

1. The applicant asserts that due to the 'major failure', he is entitled to reject the caravan and receive a full refund of the purchase price of the caravan.[19] In case of a major failure the applicant must return the goods to the supplier.[20] Upon return of the goods the supplier has a consequent obligation to refund the purchase price.[21]
2. Mr Van Haren is seeking additional compensation for other loss or damages suffered by Mr Van Haren, because of the failure to comply with the guarantee as it was reasonably foreseeable that Mr Van Haren would suffer such loss or damage.[22] The details of the amounts sought and awarded is set out towards the end of the decision, under 'OUTCOMES', starting from paragraph 141.

1. The applicant claims against the first respondent, Gateway Caravans, as the supplier of the caravan. Gateway Caravans seeks an indemnity against the manufacturer, Olympic Caravans, which is how Olympic Caravans became the second respondent.[23]
2. Further, Gateway Caravans claimed that it was the wrong respondent because it had sold its business the Club RV Group,[24] and on that basis made a claim against the Club RV Group. Gateway Caravans failed to prepare and serve a third party claim setting out clearly their case in relation to the Club RV Group. I was not provided with a copy of the contract of sale between the Gateway Caravans and the Club RV Group. On the morning of the first day of the Tribunal hearing, when I advised Gateway Caravans that the case would have to be adjourned if it wished to proceed with the Club RV Group claim, Gateway Caravans abandoned it.
3. As a bizarre consequence of this development, Robert Lilley (director, the Club RV Group), David Lilley (service manager, the Club RV Group), and Chris Bolitho (former employee of the Club RV Group), all of whom had come to the first day of the hearing on behalf of the Club RV Group as a third respondent, turned into witnesses for the first and second respondent.

1. Gateway Caravans claimed an indemnity against Olympic Caravans as the manufacturer. Gateway Caravans claims it is entitled to be indemnified in full by the manufacturer, if the Tribunal accepts there is a major failure.[25] I find that Gateway Caravans should be indemnified in full (below from paragraph 157).
2. In the hope that this makes the decision more logical, shorter and easier to follow, I have categorised all the additional defences thematically rather than setting out which of the defences is raised by which respondent. There are two main categories: 'No major failure' defences and 'The applicant caused or contributed to issues' defences.
3. Under 2 below, the 'no major failure' defences are as follows: (a) it is normal for a caravan to leak and to develop other problems, (b) not all the leaks alleged by the applicant were actual leaks; (c) the applicant subjected the caravan to extreme water testing; (d) after the applicant rejected the caravan in January 2024, it did not leak anymore for over a year, and when it did leak it was the applicant's fault it did so.
4. Under 3 below I set out what I have called 'the applicant caused or contributed to issues' defences. The respondents claim (a) the applicant may have damaged the caravan by driving on poor roads or by driving badly; (b) the applicant may have caused damage specifically to the front light, accidentally or on purpose; (c) the applicant may have damaged other parts of the caravan; (d) the applicant caused 'drag marks' on the roof of the caravan and a 'large chunk of silicone is missing'; (e) the applicant sabotaged the caravan; (i) the applicant's previous caravan was written off, therefore he may have a tendency to damage caravans; (g) the applicant damaged the caravan when trying to stop water leaks during the first cancelled trip; (h) the applicant may have damaged the caravan by not storing it properly; (i) the applicant has failed to service the caravan in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or recommendations and this must have contributed to the need for repairs; (j) the applicant may have damaged the caravan by not washing it properly; (k) whenever there were issues while the applicant was travelling with the caravan, he should have repaired the caravan locally (near the location where he was when the caravan was leaking), instead of returning home.

(a) Caravans develop problems and leaks are common

1. In its original written defence, in oral submissions at the hearing, and in post hearing submissions, Olympic Caravans claimed that leaks are the most common problem experienced by caravan owners and 'most caravans will eventually leak at some point'[26] because silicone has a shorter lifespan than other materials.
2. No reasonable consumer would, in my view, pay $75,000 for a caravan expecting that after a heavy rain they would have to sleep on a wet bed as if they were in a tent that costs at least a hundred times less than the caravan.
3. At the hearing Robert Lilley spoke in general terms and repeated Mr Veljanovski's assertion that caravan leaks are common. However, Robert Lilley is managing director of the company, not a repair person.
4. I preferred the much more detailed evidence of David Lilley who conducts repairs and who repaired Mr Van Haren's caravan. David Lilley stated that caravan water leaks are not as common as people think; he estimated that on average only about five percent of the caravans that come in for repairs are for leaks; that for a caravan to be brought in for a water leak repair more than twice would be rare although not unprecedented; that he personally had never before encountered a case where a caravan has come in for leak repairs three times; and that he and Mr Bolitho were dumbfounded, gobsmacked or flabbergasted when Mr Van Haren identified a further leak in late January 2024.
5. Mr Bolitho did not focus on the question how common water leaks are. He did discuss more generally whether it is common or unusual for a caravan to be repaired six times for any reasons. When giving evidence in chief, he said six times was not unusual, but under cross examination, he gave two examples of why a caravan might come back that many times: 'user error' where a caravan owner repeatedly does something they are not supposed to do; secondly, cases where the caravan has a pre-existing defect.
6. The respondents have never accused the applicant of 'user error'. On the available evidence, I find that for a caravan to leak six times in 21-22 months would be highly unusual and therefore that the leaks were caused by manufacturing defects.
7. I consider that the lifespan of silicone should be considerably longer than two years. 'Eventually' cannot mean a consumer would expect five or six leaks within the first two years of the life of a brand new caravan.
8. More generally, at the hearing Mr Veljanovski stated that sometimes customers approach caravan manufacturers with lists of complaints that are two or three pages long, and observed indignantly that such customers should not be allowed to reject their caravan and get a full refund; if they were able to do so, he said, caravan dealers and manufacturers would all be broke. The contention that two or three pages of legitimate complaints do not amount to major failure is impossible to accept.

(b) Some of the alleged leaks were not actual leaks

1. Simultaneously with the claim that the caravan may have been too dirty, which is dealt with further below at 3j, the respondents argue that the applicant may have washed the caravan too vigorously and that might explain how water was found inside the caravan in late 2023. Therefore, they say, some of the 'leaks' the applicant complains about are not actual leaks, namely, water found in the tunnel boot and under or behind the fridge.
2. It is not possible, on the available evidence, to determine how water was found in the tunnel boot as there was no obvious leak.
3. In relation to the fridge, the respondents also argue that there was no leak through fridge seals or some other defect. I accept Mr Bolitho's evidence that he could not find anything wrong with the fridge. In oral evidence, he said it was likely that water would have come through the vents (which are designed to let moisture out) and not due to a leak.
4. The applicant's case in not made out in relation to the two alleged leaks: under the fridge and in the tunnel boot. However, this makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

(c) Leaks were caused by the applicant conducting extreme testing

1. The respondents say that after the major repairs to the window and front light, and the subsequent repair to fix the leak through the handle, the Club RV Group subjected the caravan to thorough testing before the applicant picked it up. The respondents say it logically follows that for a further leak to happen in January 2024, the applicant must have subjected the caravan to one or both of the following: an extremely strong jet of water or water running for an excessively long period of time. While the respondents did not use this terminology, the argument was clear - a caravan is not a submarine and if you pour enough water on it, a small leak will eventually develop.
2. I do not accept this defence. The Club RV Group attended the applicant's property on or around 1 February 2024, conducted their own testing, and agreed there were two minor leaks.

1. The respondents say the applicant should keep the caravan and he can resume using it. The small leak or leaks observed in early 2024 could easily be fixed, if only the applicant allowed this to happen. Crawford Liability Services ('Crawford') inspected the caravan in the second half of 2024 and found no leaks, Mr Vijandra Singh inspected the caravan in March 2025 and likewise found no leaks.
2. Crawford prepared an insurance report in August 2024 after the applicant rejected the caravan. Mr Vijandra Singh prepared a report for Gateway Caravans in March 2025.
3. The Club RV Group made an unsuccessful insurance claim after the applicant rejected the caravan. Crawford prepared an insurance report dated 13 August 2024. The Crawford Report relevantly states 'there are potentially still issues in respect to the seal round the front window of the caravan under certain conditions',[27] even if it goes on to say it is questionable whether the existence of this 'intermittent leak' warrants a full refund because Crawford 'would expect that this issue could be addressed with further investigations and repairs'.[28]
4. In March 2025 the caravan was inspected for moisture by Mr Vijandra Singh. Mr Singh's occupation is Independent Assessor.[29] He prepared a report, 'Assessment report on water damage', that was not in accordance with the Tribunal practice note 'Practice note - PNVCAT2 - Expert evidence'. It is only about half a page long. For reasons that remain obscure, it appears he was only asked to test the front and back of the caravan, not the side walls. The inspection was conducted on 18 March 2025 at the Caravan Storage Facility Bellarine, in the middle of a 30 degree day. The report states that after a thorough test of both the front and back walls, the moisture reading was 0.0 on both walls. In addition, there were no visible signs of water damage and no moisture odour inside.[30]
5. The report did not include any technical details such as what type/model moisture reader was used to assess the moisture levels, how sensitive the reader is, whether the reader would only pick up moisture on the outside of walls or would be able to register moisture that may be trapped behind the internal walls, how much moisture can be expected to be detected at the end of summer, etc.
6. Only one of the nine photographs provided with the report, has a legible moisture reading. This photograph showed a reading of 0.0. Considering the high compensation amounts claimed by the applicant, more care should have been taken to record properly all the moisture readings.
7. Mr Singh gave evidence at the hearing for Olympic Caravans and essentially repeated the conclusions from his report. Mr Singh told the Tribunal he has worked in the field of caravan repairs for more than 20 years, but did not have any formal qualifications in that field.
8. I give Mr Singh's report little weight because: it was not prepared in accordance with the Tribunal practice direction; he lacks of formal qualifications, there are no details in relation to the equipment used to measure the moisture levels, the report contains only one photograph where the moisture levels can be seen, Mr Singh measured the moisture levels of the back and rear of the caravan but not the side walls, the caravan was inspected in the middle of the day on a hot day in late summer.
9. Mr Singh's report does not establish that the caravan would not leak again if subjected to inclement weather. And as counsel for the applicant noted, it seems that the caravan did leak again at some point after March 2025 as water damage can be observed in the photos from June 2025.
10. In summary, I do accept that the leak observed in late January 2024 was relatively minor, but it was one of several leaks over an almost two year period. In relation to the claim that the applicant should not be allowed to reject goods that currently only have a minor issue - one or two small leaks - I note the leaks are to be considered in the context of recurring problems. Relatively minor, but repeated issues, can amount to a major failure.
11. The respondents did not dispute the veracity of the photos taken in by the applicant in June 2025, some three months after Mr Singh inspected the caravan, which show mould, cracking on one of the two beds and water damage on the bed frame of the other bed. I find, based on the photographs, that water ingress continues to occur and the caravan does require further repairs. Therefore, there was still something wrong with the caravan when the applicant rejected it.
12. The respondents say the applicant caused this damage, because he has not been storing the caravan properly. This issue of storage is dealt with below at 3(h) and I find that the applicant should not be required to cover the caravan. In any event, by June 2025, the applicant had already rejected the caravan some 18 months earlier. After January 2024 when and how to store a caravan was a matter for the respondents.

3. The applicant caused or contributed to issues

(a) Driving on poor roads or in a manner that would have damaged the caravan

1. Gateway Caravans alleges that from April to September 2022 the applicant may have, at least some of the time, driven the caravan on dilapidated roads, potentially at high speeds and caused damage to the caravan, especially on the trip to Brisbane in mid-2022.
2. There was no evidence of actual damage provided in support of this assertion. Mr Bolitho in oral evidence at the hearing assessed the state of the caravan when it came in for repairs as 'average'.
3. The applicant expressly denied travelling on unsealed roads and I accept his evidence.
4. By definition all caravans should be able to be driven outside of urban areas. Given that this model is described as an off-road caravan,[31] a sealed country road should not cause any damage to the caravan and certainly not after one trip, even if that trip was several weeks long.
5. I find that the applicant used the caravan for the purpose for which he purchased it and that after six months of fair wear and tear, he did not cause any damage to it that contributed to the later leaks.

1. The respondents insisted that the applicant must have caused damage specifically to the front light, either tampered with it or accidentally. Mr Veljanovski's focused heavily on this issue. He explained that the light is fixed to the front of the caravan with both screws and glue and could not become loose - and allow water ingress - by itself.
2. Causation of the leak through the loose front light is perhaps the most challenging factual issue. It has some merit and finding in favour of the respondents would have made a material difference to the outcome.
3. There was no expert evidence before me of significant accidental force being applied to this light, let alone of deliberate damage e.g. a missing screw. Both Robert Lilley and Mr Bolitho said at the hearing they had never before encountered a light becoming loose without a physical impact. There was also this statement contained in the third respondent's defence:[32] Mr Bolitho could 'rock the work light up and down finding it highly irregular unless the light had been knocked or tampered with in some way'.
4. However, when the applicant brought the caravan in for repairs, nobody accused him of being careless or causing the damage himself. If damage caused by the applicant was not covered by the warranty, it should not have been repaired for free or at the very least the applicant should have been told that potentially the need for repairs was caused by him and he has no grounds to complain that the caravan is out of action over a long period of time in late spring and early summer.
5. I note there were several other points of water ingress from April 2022 to January 2024. Further, in relation to the light itself, Photos were provided of the light with water inside it clearly visible.[33] Robert Lilley stated in oral evidence that water condensation inside the front light was quite a common occurrence. There was also evidence at the hearing that for obvious reasons the front of the caravan, where the light is located, is the most problematic side in terms of water ingress and some caravan manufacturers have moved away from placing windows at the front.
6. The applicant was, in my view, a truthful witness and I consider that if he had hit an object accidentally, he would have been honest with the Club RV Group. He had no reason to hide it, especially given that there were so many other issues he clearly did not cause.
7. There is certainly no evidence before me of the alternative and more sinister suggestion by Mr Veljanovski: an elaborate scam by the applicant to deliberately make the front light loose to cause the caravan to require major repairs, in order to be able to get a full refund of the original purchase price (the price of a new caravan).
8. Therefore, on the evidence before me I find that the applicant did not cause damage to the front light deliberately. I accept the possibility that during travel on the road, the light may have suffered some minor impact, which the applicant remained unaware of until October 2023, but in my view the fact that it came loose for either no reason or as a result of a minor hit means there was a manufacturing defect.

(c) The applicant damaged the grab handle, window or protector shade

1. Olympic Caravans asserted that whoever - the applicant - had damaged the front light 'had possibly also damaged the grab handle and could easily have done some damage to window or protector shade'.[34]
2. The respondents provided no evidence to support this contention and I reject it.

1. In his post hearing submissions of 29 August 2025, Olympic Caravans claimed the applicant caused 'drag marks' on the roof of the caravan and a 'large chunk of silicone is missing'.[35] I could not see drag marks or a chunk of silicone missing when I looked at the photographs contained in the Crawford Report. These are serious allegations that should have been raised with Mr Van Haren in the past - and probably would have been enough to void his warranty - and should have been raised at the latest at the hearing, and Olympic Caravans could have cross-examine the applicant in relation to these allegations. I reject the defence.

1. Olympic Caravans in the post hearing submissions of 29 August 2025 raised an additional vague defence alleging that because the customer was disgruntled he 'sabotaged' the caravan[36] or he may have 'tampered' with it in some unspecified way.[37]
2. Gateway Caravans made equally vague allegations: Gateway Caravans 'can only assume to be the negligent use of the caravan';[38] or 'anything could have occurred' while the applicant was using the caravan and 'clearly something's occurred' while he was using the caravan.[39]
3. To the extent that this sabotage or tampering allegations may be referring to driving badly or on roads with potholes or damage to the front light, I have already dismissed these defences.
4. To the extent they may refer to something else, I reject the above 'sabotage' or 'tampering' claims as they are completely unparticularised and not based on any evidence.

(f) The applicant may have caused damage to his last caravan

1. The first respondent engaged in baseless speculation because Mr Van Haren's last caravan he owned before the Olympic caravan had apparently been written off.
2. At the hearing Gateway Caravans' 'submission' was that this suggests the applicant may have caused damage to the previous caravan 'in terms of the particular use of the vehicle' and therefore may have also caused damage to the Olympic caravan.
3. I reject this defence. The written off caravan may have been from last century or it may have been involved in an accident that was not the applicant's fault. No evidence was introduced in relation to the age and condition of that caravan or any of the circumstances that led to that caravan being written off.

(g) The applicant caused damage through DIY 'repairs' during the first cancelled trip

1. The respondents claim that the applicant damaged the caravan through incompetent 'self help' during the first cancelled trip - putting duct tape on the outside of the caravan as well as a plastic bag and some tape on the inside[40] - damaged the caravan. There was no expert evidence in support of the proposition that the applicant's improvised DIY fixes caused damage to anything other than the inside lining. Mr Bolitho in fact sounded very much in favour of what the applicant did, calling it 'attempted preventative measures'. Any damage to the caravan that causes or exacerbates a major leak should have been - and in my view would have been, had it actually been an issue - raised by Gateway Caravans or the manufacturer at the time of the first repair. Particularly as it would have potentially invalidated the warranty.
2. I do agree, however, that any damage to the lining inside was caused by the applicant and is not a manufacturing defect. Therefore, I have removed it from the list of defects at footnote 2.

(h) The applicant failed to protect the caravan from the elements

1. Both respondents insisted that the applicant's failure to keep the caravan covered by tarpaulin or under cover may have contributed to the leaks. The oral evidence by the respondents' own witnesses leads me to the opposite conclusion. Robert Lilley confirmed that he would always advise customers to keep their caravan under cover to reduce aesthetic degradation that would reduce the value of the caravan. Mr Bolitho was very clear - if a caravan is not suffering a water leak, he would not recommend that it be kept inside or covered. Therefore, I find this to be another speculative contention by the respondents, and I reject it.

1. The applicant was accused of failing to service the caravan in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or recommendations and the allegation was that this omission must have contributed to the need for repairs.
2. The parties did not introduce evidence in relation to the distance the caravan had travelled at various points in time, and how many times it should have been serviced. I do accept there was evidence that the caravan was not regularly serviced. I accept Robert Lilley's evidence that the caravan had not been serviced with the Club RV Group.
3. However, the defence was vague in the extreme and the respondents did not provide any particulars of the causal connection between the failure to service the caravan and the problems requiring repairs.
4. The argument is seriously undermined by the respondents' comprehensive failure to raise the applicant's 'delinquency' when he kept bringing the caravan back for repairs. Robert Lilley claimed that the Club RV Group completed repairs worth some $4,000 and did not charge the applicant anything. The amount of $4,000 does not include any of the work done by Gateway Caravans.
5. As David Lilley observed in his evidence the respondents could have refused to bear the costs of repairs under warranty, if they had reasons to believe that the applicant caused any damage by his failure to service the caravan. They could have also reminded him - as he was bringing the caravan back every few months - of his obligations to service the caravan and warn him of the problems if he failed to do so.
6. Olympic Caravans was paying the repair bills. It also raised no issues. In fact, it did the exact opposite and in April 2025 offered to extend the applicant's warranty by a further 12 months to April 2026.
7. Finally, in relation to this point I note that Crawford did not reject the insurance claim on the basis of a failure to service the caravan.
8. For the above reasons, I find that the applicant did not cause or contribute to any issues through his failure to service the caravan in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

1. During the hearing, the claim was raised that the applicant potentially did not wash the caravan properly, therefore dirt or mud may have accumulated, may have damaged components of the caravan - seals in particular - and this would have contributed to water leaks.
2. None of the witnesses claimed that the caravan was dirty when brought in for repairs and the caravan was inspected, or at least sighted about ten times or even more.[41] When asked specifically about this at the hearing, Mr Bolitho said he found the caravan to be reasonably clean. The respondents did not adduce evidence either of the presence of dirt or general evidence to the effect that failure to keep the caravan clean would cause or contribute to leaks in the first two years of a caravan's life. I also note that this is the exact opposite of the defence that the applicant may have washed / water tested the caravan excessively. This defence is not made out.

(k) The applicant failed to repair the caravan locally while travelling

1. The defence was not that the applicant had caused or exacerbated the damage to the caravan, but rather that he had exacerbated the inconvenience to himself. Olympic Caravans contend that the applicant could have taken advantage of the warranty and repaired the caravan 'locally' - near his location when travelling - and had he done so, he would not have had to cancel two trips.
2. The warranty relevantly states:

Olympic Caravan ... warrants for a period of two (2) years from date of purchase that should any defects in workmanship or material develop in any part of the caravan, such defects shall be rectified, at no cost to the purchaser, upon return of the caravan to Olympic Caravans or its sales representative (place of purchase) or a workshop nominated/approved by the company.

1. I accept the possibility that if the applicant was lucky, he could have indeed had quick repairs done and not cancelled one or both the first and the second cancelled trips. But in my view the defence is speculative.
2. At the hearing there was evidence given in relation to the 'local' repairman in Wollongong to whom Mr Van Haren apparently could have taken the caravan during the first cancelled trip. I accept the applicant's evidence that he did not know about this repairman and when he tried to look up local repair people, he did not find anyone close enough to Moss Vale.
3. Olympic Caravans did not introduce into evidence a list of 'nominated / approved' businesses in Victoria, NSW and Queensland (the three states the applicant travelled to in the caravan). I was not made aware of a list that was either given to the applicant at any time or that was at least easily accessible.
4. Mr Veljanovski speculated at the hearing that if the applicant had taken the caravan to Wollongong, the approved repairman would have fixed the leak in 20 minutes. Taking into account that it took six days to do the repairs in Victoria; I cannot accept this assertion.
5. Further, if the repair person in Wollongong was not available on the same day or could not complete the repairs on the day, the applicant and his wife would have had to pay for accommodation, further increasing their costs while stuck in Wollongong which was not a city on their itinerary.
6. Mr Veljanovski did not name a business or location where the applicant should have taken the caravan before cancelling the second trip. There is no evidence before me that a local business would have been available to fix the problem quickly or at all. Gateway Caravan took two weeks to fix the leak after the second cancelled trip.
7. Further, it is relevant to consider the total cost of 'local' repairs compared to repairs by Gateway Caravans or the Club RV Group. I accept the evidence of David Lilley that local repairers can sometimes overcharge for urgent repairs that an interstate traveller might be quite desperate to obtain immediately. The manufacturer - Olympic Caravans - would then obviously have to pay a higher amount to reimburse that local repairer.
8. Therefore, on the evidence before me, I find that the applicant acted reasonably when he cancelled both the first and second cancelled trips, in September-October 2022, and returned to his home to seek repairs both times.

1. None of the defences is made out, except for the indemnity.
2. Obviously if Mr Van Haren succeeds in this application, he would be entitled to a larger sum of money than if he traded in the caravan or sold it second hand. During the hearing Mr Veljanovski noted that the applicant had already bought a new caravan and suggested that the applicant might be exaggerating the issues or causing deliberate damage to the Olympic caravan to get the full purchase price, instead of a lower amount for trading in the second hand Olympic caravan when purchasing a new one.
3. I accept the applicant's evidence that in the past he had replaced caravans after many years of ownership, and he was hoping to use the Olympic caravan for many years. I give weight to the fact that the initial application to the Tribunal was for a modest amount of compensation while the applicant persisted in trying to have the caravan repaired so he could continue to use it.
4. When the applicant rejected the caravan in early 2024, it had been 14 months since he had applied to the Tribunal for compensation and nothing much had happened in the proceeding. The applicant knew he was absolutely not guaranteed to win the case and get compensation, let alone a full refund of the caravan. It makes no sense that he would take the risk of causing additional damage to his own caravan, if in the end he might lose the Tribunal case and be stuck with the Olympic caravan which he had caused to depreciate through 'sabotage'.
5. Many of the above defences could only be made out if the respondents proved on the balance of probabilities that the applicant either deliberately damaged the caravan or lied about an issue or did both. Because the respondents did not have a skerrick of probative evidence in support of either proposition, many of the above defences had to be vague, but the underlying implications remained serious: the applicant deliberately damaged the front light, he exaggerated problems to claim a full refund of the purchase price, he sabotaged the caravan, he exposed the caravan to extreme water testing to cause a leak and then denied it, and so on. Some of these claims came perilously close to being not only frivolous, but an abuse of process.
6. A corollary of this is that I had to turn these messy contentions into something concrete and as logical as possible, lest I be accused of not dealing with all the respondents' individual defences.
7. Because the respondents' defences (except for the indemnity) were weak and unparticularised, they unnecessarily (a) prolonged the hearing turning what could have been a half-day hearing into a two-day hearing, and (b) made the task of writing logical and well-structured reasons for decision arduous and time consuming.
8. In this context I make an observation that may be relevant to the award of costs: it was open to Gateway Caravans to run whatever defences it saw fit. However, Gateway Caravans had a simple and, because the applicant did not allege any issues with the quality of Gateway Caravans' repairs, almost full proof indemnity claim against the manufacturer. Given the lack of merit in the other defences, in my view any other defences should have been left to Olympic Caravans to run.

1. I find that the applicant is a 'consumer', the caravan is 'goods' and the caravan was supplied 'in trade and commerce'.
2. I find that the applicant only ever caused very minor, and not structural, damage to the caravan and when he put tape over the lining, during the first cancelled trip in September-October 2022.
3. I am therefore satisfied that there were repeated leaks and other manufacturing defects requiring repairs and that includes the list of items from October 2022 (footnote 2) and the list of items with defects identified after the applicant rejected the caravan (footnote 8):
4. It is well established that the guarantee of 'acceptable quality' contained in the ACL is not a guarantee of perfection.[42] Whether the goods are of an acceptable quality is evaluated objectively through a reasonable consumer test. The test was clearly set out by the High Court in Williams v Toyota.[43] I have paraphrased and simplified it:
   • - what would a reasonable consumer at the time of supply regard as acceptable if they were fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects;
   • - at least in a case involving a hidden defect, to decide whether the guarantee has been complied with, the reasonable consumer is someone 'fully acquainted' with the true state and condition of the goods, including later (after supply) acquired knowledge of the propensity of the defect to occasion adverse consequences and the nature of those consequences, over the period of time leading up to the trial, or Tribunal hearing.
5. The 'full knowledge' would include a leak on day one in April 2022 through to two leaks on the day of the rejection in January 2024 after two rounds of repairs in January 2024, and signs of further water ingress in June 2025. The period from October 2023 to the rejection is particularly important, because the repairs from late 2023 to early January 2024 were major, the caravan was supposedly thoroughly tested afterwards and yet there was one more leak later in January 2024; and when the handle leak was fixed and the caravan was inspected before being returned to the applicant, only days later there were two new leaks (the ones the applicant identified on the day of rejection). By the time the applicant rejected the caravan, the Club RV Group repairers - who by all accounts are competent and diligent - were 'dumbfounded' 'gobsmacked' or 'flabbergasted', because the caravan was leaking still or again. From September 2022 to January 2024 there were four cancelled trips and, cumulatively, months of waiting for repairs.
6. Put another way, the period when the caravan was not repeatedly leaking was only about five months' long from later April to late September 2022.
7. The relevant period in the mind of the consumer extends to the hearing in August 2025. Photos from June 2025 show water damage inside the caravan[44] in circumstances where I accept the applicant has not been negligent or careless in the way he has been storing the caravan (paragraphs 64 to 75 above).
8. I accept that the caravan was not fit for all the purposes for which caravans are commonly supplied, that is, to provide shelter and to serve as mobile accommodation. This caravan is not a motor home, that is, it cannot be driven by itself, it has to be towed. If it were a motor home and the leaks were confined to the 'bedroom' at the back of the motor home, while the front was still usable, it would still be fit to be used for travel and not fit for shelter and accommodation. However, because this is not a motor home, I find that it is not fit for all the purposes for which caravans of this kind are commonly supplied.
9. The caravan could not easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make it fit for the purpose of mobile accommodation. If the totality of the repairs was measured in days or a couple of weeks, that may be a reasonable period. Two years of repeated repairs adding up to months, with ongoing water ingress three years after the caravan was purchased, is not reasonable.
10. I further accept it is not free from defects and not durable due to the number of leaks and the other defects raised in late 2022[45] and after the caravan was rejected.[46]
11. I have no hesitation in finding that a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure would not have acquired the caravan in April 2022 both because of the sheer number of issues and because of the significant consequences some of the defects had in terms of major disruptions to travel plans and inability to enjoy an expensive caravan.

1. Further below (paragraph 156) is a table with a detailed breakdown of the amounts I award the applicant.

1. The applicant has rejected the caravan. He has continued to pay insurance and registration costs but, it seems, he has acquired a new caravan. His position is that he remains ready and able to return the caravan in exchange for a full refund of the original purchase price of $76,450.
2. In case of a major failure, where the goods in question have been validly rejected, the supplier must refund the purchase price.[47] Therefore, I find that the applicant is entitled to a full refund of the purchase price of $76,450 from the supplier.

Fuel expenses for cancelled trips, camping fees and cancellation fees

1. As I have rejected the submission that by using 'local repairs' the applicant could have avoided cancelling his first and second trip, he is entitled to some compensation in relation to the trips. The applicant claims $624.48 in fuel for the first cancelled trip and $601.26 for the second, the price of three nights' accommodation during the first cancelled trip totalling $75, and two separate cancellation fees of $25 each.
2. The first cancelled trip was expected to last about four weeks. It was cancelled only a few days in, after the applicant and his wife had endured a rather unpleasant three nights due to the first water leak. It is reasonable to allow the claimed amount of $624.48 in full.[48]
3. I have decided to reduce the amount that should be awarded in relation to the second cancelled trip because the trip was expected to last approximately three weeks and the applicant observed a leak about a week after the start of the trip. Thus, having had the benefit of a weeklong trip, without any leaks, the applicant in my view should be reimbursed for two thirds of the total fuel expenses associated with this cancelled trip, that is, $400.84 out of $601.26.[49] The total I am allowing in fuel costs comes up to $1,025.32.
4. The applicant is entitled to a refund of three nights' accommodation at Moss Vale in the lead up to the cancellation of the first trip ($75 total). While he used the accommodation, he was battling the elements.
5. The $50 item consists of two separate cancellation fees in at Tathra Beach - $25 is for the first cancelled trip and $25 for the second cancelled trip. Because I do not accept the respondents' contention about 'local repairs', the applicant should be reimbursed. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to the total claimed of $125 ($75 + $50).

1. The applicant claims a portion of the insurance and registration costs. implicitly admitting that he is not entitled to a full refund, because he received some benefit from the caravan. The total claim is $1,489.89 consisting of three amounts - $461.95 (pro rata five twelfths of the total) for the period April 2023 to April 2024; $323.06 (pro-rata three fifths of the total) for April 2024 to September 2024; and $704.88 (pro-rata half of the annual costs) for October 2024 to August 2025.
2. The annual registration and insurance payments are payable in April and every year the fees increase. The pro-rata amounts claimed for the periods April 2023 to April 2024 and April 2024 to September 2024 have been calculated correctly using the applicant's formula. Therefore, I allow the full amount claimed of $461.92 for April 2023 to April 2024, and $323.06 for April 2024 to September 2024.
3. A problem arises in relation to the third period from October 2024 to August 2025. Mr Van Haren seeks 50 percent of the "annual" insurance and registration fees based on the fees for 2025-2026 ($671.53 out of the total insurance costs of $1,343.05 and $33.35 out of $66.70 for registration for April 2025 to April 2026). The problem is that the annual registration and insurance costs he paid were $117.54 lower in 2024-2025 compared to 2025-2026. On a per month basis this would be about $10 less in registration and insurance per month in 2024-2025 compared to 2025-2026. Using the pro-rata formula proposed by the applicant, which is to seek reimbursement for half the registration and insurance costs, I would have to reduce the amount I award the applicant by $5 a month (half of $10 is $5) for the months from October 2024 to April 2025. The total reduction I would be applying would be $35 in total (seven months from 1 October to 30 April multiplied by $5 a month) out of $706.88.
4. I have decided to award the applicant the higher "incorrect" amount. This is because the caravan has been in storage during the entire period from October 2024 to August 2025 and the applicant has not been using it. It is therefore fair, in my view, to award the applicant more than half of the total registration and insurance costs. I allow the full amount sought of $706.88 for October 2024 to August 2025 and $1,489.89 in total for insurance and registration costs.

Cost of installing towel rails and ring, and antenna

1. The applicant claims $79.64 for a towel rails and ring, and $56.63 for an external antenna he purchased specially for the caravan. He could potentially remove these items from the caravan, but he could not use them outside of it, that is, he would derive no benefit from them. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the full amount of $136.27 combined for these items.

1. I am not allowing the expenses the applicant incurred preparing for the hearing: the cost of binders, printing and photos.[50] The expenses are not in the nature of legal disbursements.

1. I allow both fees claimed, the application fee paid when the applicant increased his claim above the $15,000 threshold ($179.60) and the fee for the second hearing date ($184.90). The total is $364.50. The applicant did not pay the initial fee for a small claim.

1. The total amount I award is $80,339.92. The breakdown is as follows:

Fuel costs spent on first cancelled trip[51]

Fuel costs spent on second cancelled trip[52]

Camping fees for Moss Vale because the caravan was leaking during the applicant's stay[53]

Cancellation fees (two trips) Tathra Beach[54]

1. Registration[58]
   • April 2024 to September 2024

1. Tribunal fees[65]
2. Additional fee because the claim exceeds $15,000
3. Fee for second hearing date

1. Under the ACL a manufacturer of goods is liable to indemnify the supplier if the applicant is liable to pay damages to the consumer for loss or damage suffered by the consumer and the manufacturer would be liable to pay the consumer (directly)[66] for the same loss or damage.[67]
2. I find that all the requirements have been made out by Gateway Caravans and therefore it is appropriate to make an order requiring Olympic Caravans to indemnify the supplier Gateway Caravan to the full extent of the supplier's liability to the applicant.
3. On 7 November 2025 the Tribunal received an email from Douglas Caillard, Practitioner Director of Kyard Business Law. Mr Caillard submitted on behalf of Olympic Caravans that Gateway Caravans' indemnity does not cover the supplier's (Gateway Caravans') profit. Mr Caillard submits as follows:

The scope of the indemnity under s 274(3) is for such legal or equitable relief as the supplier could have obtained if that liability had arisen under a contract of indemnity made between them. The section does not contain an indemnity for the profit margin of the supplier, which would require an express term if it was to arise under a contract of indemnity, because only pay to the applicant the amount inclusive of Gateway Caravans' profit.

1. For the following reasons, I am not prepared to make the proposed orders contained in the email that this proceeding must not be finalised until Gateway Caravans sell the caravan, 'any questions of mitigation have been resolved' and Gateway Caravans has provided evidence to the manufacturer of its profit margin:

(a) this process may take several months;

(b) this email was written in response to the Tribunal asking a simple and unrelated question - where the applicant should take the caravan after he receives compensation. Olympic Caravans should have made a claim against Gateway Caravans before the conclusion of the hearing;

(c) the Tribunal is ignorant of Gateway Caravans' profit margin. No evidence has been provided in relation to this question;

(d) the exact meaning of section 274(3) and consequently of Mr Caillard's submission (above at paragraph 159) remains elusive. Presumably the reason subsection 274(3) exists is to cover situations where the supplier and manufacturer do not have a contract of indemnity. It seems to me nonsensical that under the legislation the relief the supplier is entitled to is the same as what they would have been entitled to pursuant to a non-existent contract. I am not aware of standard indemnity contracts between manufacturers and suppliers of caravans. Olympic Caravans and Gateway Caravans, had they opted to have an indemnity contract, may have chosen to include an express term that the indemnity would cover the supplier's profit;

(e) the proposal is overly complex and unclear. I am unsure what the meaning of 'questions of mitigation' is, nor who and how will be resolving these questions in the absence of a counterclaim by Olympic Caravans against Gateway Caravans;

(f) my decision does not preclude Olympic Caravans from brining a claim against Gateway Caravans before it is wound up, or against its directors in the future;

(g) Gateway Caravans should not be burdened with the obligation to sell a caravan with manufacturing defects that has been rejected due to a major failure;

(h) as Gateway Caravans is no longer trading and repairs are necessary, or least desirable in order to achieve a good price, Olympic Caravans should choose a business to repair the caravan from its list of local repairers;

(i) if Gateway Caravans does sell the caravan, but the manufacturer believes they could have achieved a better price, there may be further litigation between the manufacturer and the supplier;

(j) Gateway Caravans has nowhere to store the caravan. Would Gateway Caravans, for example, store the caravan at the house of one of its directors and advertise on social media to achieve a sale? Clearly such a sale would attract much less interest than a sale through a supplier with a proper 'shop'; and

(k) Gateway Caravans is no longer trading. Therefore, a consumer who buys the caravan would not be able to make a future claim against the company, because it would be wound up as soon as the caravan is sold and this proceeding is completed.

1. Because of the issues I have identified in the paragraph immediately above, particularly at (g) to (i), I consider that the caravan must be returned to the manufacturer and not the supplier. If Olympic Caravans does not pay the damages ordered to the applicant within 14 days of the date of these orders or does not direct the applicant where to deliver the caravan by the same date, the applicant may dispose of the caravan as he sees fit.
2. Once Olympic Caravans pays and advises the applicant where to take the caravan, he should take it to that location within three days of payment of the full amount. Subsequently, within seven days of delivery of the caravan, the applicant must also complete all things reasonably necessary to transfer the title and registration to the second respondent or, if another person is named, to that other person (corporate or natural).

1. In summary, for the reasons stated above I make the following findings and orders:

(1) Olympic Caravans is the manufacturer of the caravan. Gateway Caravans supplied the caravan to the applicant;

(2) The caravan did not comply with the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality at the time of supply;

(3) The failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was a major failure;

(4) The applicant validly rejected the caravan on 23 January 2024;

(5) Gateway Caravans is entitled to a full indemnity from Olympic Caravans in the sum of $80,339.92;

(6) Upon payment of $80,339.92, the applicant must return the caravan to the manufacturer and do what is necessary to register the caravan in the name of Olympic Caravans; and

(7) Costs are reserved.

1. I found the applicant to be a credible and reliable witness. He did not embellish his evidence or exaggerate the level of inconvenience caused by the leaks in an attempt to elicit sympathy. This is why it is not necessary to reproduce his oral evidence in detail. He told the Tribunal he first bought a caravan in the late 1990s. He insisted that he knows how to wash a caravan (to make sure water does not penetrate the inside). He was adamant he did not drive the new caravan on unsealed roads or use it improperly in any other way prior to September 2022. He expressly denied damaging the front light, deliberately or accidentally.
2. In relation to the water tests done after the major repairs in December 2023 to January 2024 and the sixth repair (when water was coming in through the handle), he explained that he did not subject the caravan to extreme testing, that is, he did not use a 'jet' setting to mimic extreme weather. On 23 January 2024 he said he placed the hose on the roof of the caravan and went inside to identify if there was a leak again, and if there was, its precise location. He observed that if he were to increase the water pressure and spray water at the caravan at a 90 degree angle would mean he would need to remain outside - holding the hose - and could not have pinpointed the leak inside.

1. Robert Lilley is currently a director of the Club RV Group. He has been working in the industry since 2007. In his opinion the caravan is currently fit for purpose. He said leaks are the most common problem with caravans, echoing what Mr Veljanovski had mentioned earlier. Caravans get bounced around on roads, often at high speed. Some of the roads have potholes, caravans can get jolted and sealant can crack or split, allowing water ingress.
2. Mr Lilley was asked about the fridge repair that formed part of the fifth repair. He explained that Mr Bolitho had removed all the fridge vents and had not found any water leaks, but had resealed the vents 'just to be sure' and to give the applicant comfort that there will not be any leaks in future. Mr Lilley added that the middle part of one of the vents is deliberately designed to let hot air / gases out of the caravan and, if there is, for example, heavy rain with cross wind water could come in through the vent. Water could also come through the vent when the caravan is getting washed.
3. He described the water testing done by Gateway Caravans after the fifth repair as 'subjecting the caravan to a cyclone', that is 'concentrated water at volume, at speed, pointed directly at the van.' In cross examination he admitted the rigorous water testing was only done to the area of the caravan that had been repaired.
4. Mr Lilley could not confirm that any time he had expressly told the applicant to store the caravan under cover or to cover it with a tarpaulin. While he insisted that 'we always recommend that customers store vans with a cover', when asked a further question about that standard recommendation, Mr Lilley explained it is to limit degradation in the appearance of the caravan caused by exposure to sun and rain that would reduce the value of the caravan.
5. When questioned by Mr Veljanovski, Robert Lilley said he often sees water condensation inside front lights, but that is different from a loose light that allows water to enter inside the caravan itself. The only time has seen a light come off is through damage to it.
6. Mr Lilley was asked if the water damage and cracking that can be seen in photographs provided by the applicant in June 2025 was a major failure or common for caravans. He said in his view it was not a major failure, and the caravan could be easily repaired. I note that he was not asked about the totality of issues, just the June 2025 damage.
7. Mr Lilley estimated that the total value of the repairs carried out by Geelong Caravans under warranty, for which the applicant was not charged, was about $3,000-$4,000.

1. Mr Bolitho is currently workshop coordinator for Snowy River Caravans. He was previously workshop manager for Geelong Caravans and service technician for Gateway Caravans prior to that. He said he has been in the caravan industry for about 16 years.
2. During examination in chief Mr Bolitho was asked whether each time the caravan presented itself at the workshop it was 'fully functional' and 'safe to use'. Mr Bolitho replied that prior to late 2023 the caravan was 'ok' but in late 2023 'it did have signs of water... in various places.'
3. The witness expressed the opinion that the last time he saw the caravan in early 2024 the water leaks did not constitute a major defect. He did, however, say later in his evidence that the defects if left for long enough would have caused serious problems.
4. In contrast to Robert Lilley's evidence, Mr Bolitho expressly denied that he would have recommended to the applicant to store the caravan 'indoors' after the repairs had been completed properly because there would be no reason to believe that the caravan would leak again. Later, in cross examination, Mr Bolitho told the Tribunal that at present there are about 40 caravans at his workshop and, apart from a couple of caravans being repaired, all the caravans are outside and uncovered.
5. As mentioned in the chronology of events, after the fifth repair in January 2024 Geelong Caravans put the hose on 'jet' setting and pointed it at a 90 degree angle to the front window 'to basically see if you can force anything in there'. He insisted that such conditions would 'never occur in normal circumstances, but it doesn't hurt' to test in this manner.
6. A short time later the witness conceded that he had previously seen leaks occurring even after these 'extreme weather tests' with the hose. This could happen while a caravan is travelling, due to the difference in pressure between the outside and the inside causing water to be sucked in. Some caravans have devices that correct or equalise the inside pressure to prevent this 'sucking in' from occurring, Olympic Javelin does not.
7. When asked by Mr Snow about the condition of the caravan when it came in for repairs, the witness said in terms of cleanliness it was reasonably clean and in terms of fair wear and tear the condition of the caravan was average.
8. He did not have any concerns that the applicant's DIY 'repairs' during the first cancelled trip, the duct tape on the outside of the caravan and tape / plastic bag on the inside, may have contributed to later leaks. He called them 'attempted preventative measures'.
9. In relation to servicing, Mr Bolitho stated that caravans should be serviced every 10,000 kilometres or every 12 months. He was not asked whether the applicant could have contributed to water leaks or other issues by failing to bring the caravan for service when it was due.
10. Mr Veljanovski asked Mr Bolitho whether the front light might have had a manufacturing fault such as screws missing or glue not being applied properly. Mr Bolitho answered no; in his experience he only time he has seen a front light come off previously was due to 'physical damage'.
11. In relation to water under the fridge, Mr Bolitho agreed with Mr Veljanovski that it was likely that it would have come through the vents, and was not due to a leak. He inspected the fridge and saw no signs of water running. His conclusion was that the water came through the vent openings and there was no leak requiring repairs to the fridge.
12. In cross examination Mr Bolitho stated that returning a caravan for repairs six times was not unusual. However, when asked to give examples of when this might happen, the first example he gave was 'user error' where a caravan owner keeps doing the same thing even after being told not to do so. The second example he gave was 'bad batches of product, for example, ... faulty windows'. He was not asked to give other examples.
13. In cross examination he accepted that if water is leaking onto bedding or getting behind padding (and causing mould), the leaks can be said to affect the use of the caravan; and, further, he accepted that if windows are closed properly and not excessively dirty, water should not come in.

1. At present Mr Lilley is service manager at Gateway Caravans. He said that over the last two years he would have seen about 2,000 caravans that have come in for repairs. He said that 'not that many' caravans would be brought in more than once for water leaks; on average one caravan a week out of about 20. For a caravan to be brought back for a third time would be 'quite rare' but 'not unprecedented'. In cross examination Mr Lilley stated that he could not remember another case of a caravan coming back three times for leaks. He agreed with the proposition put to him by counsel for the applicant that the repairs in December 2023 to January 2024 were 'major' and Mr Lilley had a 'fair expectation' that the caravan would not leak again.
2. Mr Lilley gave evidence that when a leak was observed at the applicant's house after the sixth repair, both Mr Lilley and Mr Bolitho were 'dumbfounded' 'gobsmacked' or 'flabbergasted'.
3. Mr Lilley explained that the fifth round of repairs was done meticulously by Mr Bolitho so that the caravan was 'probably better than what it was when manufactured'.
4. Mr Veljanovski asked Mr Lilley about the leak from the front light. Mr Veljanovski while asking the question asserted that the light was coming off or 'sticking out from the van'. Mr Lilley said he did not see the light sticking out of the caravan. In terms of how well the light was attached when the caravan was new, he insisted that before the caravan is given to a customer it would be thoroughly inspected and therefore it's unlikely the light was not attached / glued properly during the manufacturing process.
5. Because the movement of the caravan causes wind like conditions, the front of the caravan is where leaks are most commonly seen. While discussing the front light and front window, Mr Lilley told the Tribunal that some caravan makers have moved away from designs where there are 'cutouts' - including windows - at the front of the caravan.
6. In response to a question from Mr Veljanovski about water marks in the shoebox Mr Lilley agreed that if water is squirted under the caravan or 'applied in a way that would hit the louvres' it could 'bounce' into the caravan.
7. In relation to servicing, when asked by Mr Snow, Mr Lilley said that it is important to service caravans in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations because they are moving homes and quite complex. He expressly denied that after a long trip (for example, a trip of several weeks' duration to Brisbane and back) the caravan must be serviced. Rather, servicing should be done at set times as per the manufacturer's recommendations or if the owner notices a problem.
8. When asked by Mr Veljanovski Mr Lilley gave a similar answer: he did not recall failure to service the caravan being an issue in this case. Servicing is critical to the performance of a caravan and it would be something he would consider before accepting to honour the warranty and perform repairs for free. Later on, he stated that if he has formed the view, when a caravan comes in, that it is likely that the lack of servicing has in fact contributed to the need for repairs, that information that is passed on to the manufacturer.
9. Mr Veljanovski asked Mr Lilley whether they would tell a customer who is experiencing issues while away on a trip to return to Geelong for repairs or to have the repairs locally (where they happen to be on the trip). Mr Lilley's answer was that they would have a preference that the customer in fact return to them, particularly if it is a major issue such as a recall. He explained that where a local repairer completes one off repairs, where the customer is in the middle of a trip, sometimes the repairer would engage in profiteering.
10. In cross examination Mr Lilley agreed that if the windows were noticeably dirty such that caked mud or dirt could be the cause of the leak, Geelong Caravans would have become aware of the issue.

[1] Photograph of leak at Tribunal Book ('TB') 34.

1. [2] a) Water pressure reducer faulty, causes hot water system TPR valve to blow; b) Explorer TV input [used at caravan parks with weak antenna signal] fault, no TV signal; c) Redarc BMS1230 [battery management system] remote screen intermittent fault; d) Drop down corner steadies loose bolts; e) Near side bed end wall trim at floor level; f) Near side bed window fails to stay open and fails to close, intermittently; g) Cook top front right hand burner fails to ignite, intermittently; h) Cook top left hand side screw falls out while travelling; i) Swift hot water system without bracket, not as per install instructions; j) LPG line saddle screw broken and only one screw used to attach to A-frame.

The list included a dripping tap and front wall interior lining repair. The first respondent denied any issues with the kitchen tap and I give them the benefit of the doubt. I have not included it in my consideration as a proven defect. The front wall lining was damaged by the applicant because he put tape over it in a failed attempt to stop water from coming in and therefore it, too, is not a defect.

[8] I have deleted three items from the list. One related to the quality of repairs but that was a claim against the third respondent who is no longer a party.

Two items that I have deleted from this list is 'installation of hot water service without required bracket' (TB 94, 95, 98) because it was contained in the list of defects provided in October 2022, item number 9; and 'a faulty TPR valve' (TB 265) is item number 1 on the same October 2022 list:

(a) Poor build quality and patching (TB 86-87), (b) improper wiring of a 12 pin tow plug (TB91), (c) non-level installation of the tea-towel holder (TB94), (d) faulty installation of a safety camera (TB96, 264), (e) improper installation of trim at the side of the bed base (TB97), (f) improper installation of power outlets and USB sockets (TB100), (g) a broken outlet for greywater tank (TB101-102), (h) a scratch in the kitchen floor (TB104-105), (i) a faulty cassette toilet (TB266), (j) gaps in sealant (TB82), faulty LED indicator lights (the claim that the LED lights are faulty seems to have been raised in January 2024, that is, shortly before the applicant rejected the caravan. Nevertheless, it is an alleged defect, TB 323).

[10] All references below to legislative provisions are to the ACL, unless otherwise indicated.

Goods sold at auction are excluded from the operation of section 54 but the caravan was not bought at auction.

[18] As previously discussed only 5 of the 6 repairs were for leaks.

[24] Even though the Club RV Group Pty Ltd trades under the name Geelong Caravans, the first and second respondent already have the word 'caravans' in their name and RV Group is less confusing.

[26] Post hearing submissions, dated 29 August 2025.

[27] At [9.23] of the Crawford report.

[28] At [9.38] of the Crawford report.

[29] A sole trader operating under the business name Jentech CMB.

[30] TB 150-262, including photographs.

[31] See e.g. the Crawford (insurance) report dated 13 August 2024 at p. 227 of the TB, [3.1].

[34] Second respondent's post-hearing submissions, dated 29 August 2025.

[35] Second respondent's post-hearing submissions, dated 29 August 2025. The damage is meant to be visible in the Crawford Report.

[36] Second respondent's post-hearing submissions, dated 29 August 2025.

[37] A claim put forward by solicitor for Gateway Caravans during the hearing.

[39] Mr Paul Snow's oral submissions at the hearing.

[40] Photo of tape and plastic bag at TB 45, 47.

[41] This includes visits to the applicant's house.

[42] See, for example, Norton v Hervey Motors Ltd [1996] DCR 427.

[43] Williams v Toyota Motor Corp Australia Ltd [2024] HCA 38; (2024) 419 ALR 373 at 13-14, [33].

[44] The respondents do not dispute that some of the damage in these photos appears to be water damage.

[47] Vautin v B Y Winddown Inc. (No. 4) [2018] FCA 426 at [286].

[48] The total adds up to $624.48 when one adds up all four fuel invoices: $76.95, $190.96, $148.18 and $208.39, TB 158, 167-170, 179. The total amount claimed for fuel at pages 158 and 179 of the TB does not include one of the four invoices, for $76.95. The missed invoice, which I have included, is at TB 167.

[49] In Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2018] VCAT 1520 at [119] the Tribunal discounted the amount claimed by the applicant for on road costs for the same reason - the costs were not entirely thrown away by the applicant.