McDonald v Slaughter [2025] NSWCATCD 179;

1. The applicant claims that the respondent made statements regarding the effectiveness of the repairs, and made a statement guaranteeing the work, which was not honoured when further leaks arose in 2024.
2. This claim overlaps with the claim for misleading and deceptive conduct, set out above. Both claims rely on the applicant establishing on the balance of probabilities that the respondent offered a "lifetime warranty" for the repairs and stated the repair would permanently prevent rust in the roof skin. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal that these representations were made.
3. I am therefore not satisfied that the respondent made false or misleading representations as claimed by the applicant, and dismiss this claim.

1. The Tribunal notes it is required to do its best to estimate the quantum of loss based on the evidence before it. The applicant claims the cost of repairs in November 2024, as well as a claim for loss of value of the Vehicle in the amount of $19,000.
2. Damages are to put the successful party in the position they would be in had the breach not occurred.
3. The vehicle was re-repaired with a new roof skin installed on 25 November 2024 at a cost of $11,700.05. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is the direct loss resulting from the respondent's breach of the consumer warranties.
4. There is no evidence of independent valuation of the Vehicle. A carsales.com.au automatic valuation calculated the Vehicle value at $48,700-$52700 by carsales.com.au on 30 June 2025 including aftermarket additions. At this time it was insured for $52,500.
5. The applicant sold the car for $31,000 to an auction house on 6 May 2025. The car had driven approximately 200,000km. The applicant acknowledged that selling the car to an auction house was at a lower price than he would be able to obtain on an open market. There is no evidence that the sale included various aftermarket additions which were installed on the car.
6. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the value of the Vehicle was reduced as a result of the respondent's breach. The damage was repaired. The Tribunal is satisfied that the November 2024 repair placed the Vehicle in the condition it would have been in had the breach not occurred.
7. The Tribunal therefore dismisses the claim for loss of value.
8. Section 79N of the FT Act empowers the Tribunal to make an order requiring the respondent to pay the applicant a sum of money. Before making such an order, the Tribunal is required to be satisfied that the order will be fair and equitable to all parties to the claim (s 79U(1)of the FT Act). Section 79U(2) of the FT Act gives a non exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining if the order will be fair and equitable.
9. In these proceedings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the factors in s79U(2) are relevant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed order will be fair and equitable.

1. The Tribunal orders that the David Slaughter pay Geoffrey McDonald the sum of $11,700.05 within 14 days of the date of these orders.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.