//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2020] QCAT 384
plaintiff. The applicants must return the motor vehicle within 7 days, and the respondent must pay them jointly $57,556 within 28 days; no filing-fee costs order was made.
The Tribunal found that the campervan had an intermittent transmission fault when sold. It accepted evidence that the fault could not be repaired because the necessary parts were unavailable, and that a reasonable pre-purchase inspection was not expected to reveal it. A fully informed reasonable consumer would not have bought the van, so the failure was major. Because the applicants sought a refund soon after diagnosis, they rejected the van within the relevant period. They had to return it, and the respondent had to pay them jointly $57,556, including the refund and allowed expenses. The Tribunal did not order payment of the filing fee.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,156 words · generated 01/10/2026
Pamela Moss and Joanne Brown purchased a Ford Transit campervan from Reece Rosvall trading as Preferred Autos under a contract dated 7 July 2019. The purchase price was $55,596.50 ([2]). They later sought a refund and damages under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ([5]).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
Before buying the van, the first applicant arranged an inspection by Steve Kamphuis of Ultra Tune Mermaid Beach. Mr Kamphuis identified faults, but could not inspect the transmission without “enormous time and effort” ([17]). After collecting the vehicle, the first applicant set out on a trip. About 148 km into the trip, the van made a strange sound and a warning light came on ([18]).
The applicants relied on Mr Kamphuis’ diagnosis of an intermittent transmission fault involving the hydraulic pump and actuators. His September 2019 letter said the relevant parts were no longer available and there was no repair option ([19]). The respondent relied on evidence from Chris McCurdy, an automatic-transmission specialist. Mr McCurdy described diagnosing a fault code and a wiring issue, and said parts were available ([20]–[21]).
The Tribunal had to assess conflicting evidence. It found that Mr McCurdy had probably not observed the intermittent transmission failure during his inspection. The Tribunal considered that he had found and fixed a different fault, because the original sound later recurred ([27]–[28]). It accepted Mr Kamphuis’ evidence about the intermittent failure and the unavailability of parts ([30]–[31]). It also accepted that the fault existed when the applicants bought the van, while finding that the former owner had developed a particular way of driving that minimised its occurrence ([29]).
The Tribunal concluded that the van failed the acceptable-quality guarantee, that the failure was major, and that the applicants rejected the vehicle within the relevant period. It ordered the applicants to return the van within 7 days, and the respondent to pay them jointly $57,556 within 28 days ([45]). The applicants’ allowed damages totalled $1,986.50 ([42]). The Tribunal did not order the respondent to pay the applicants’ $345.80 filing fee ([44]).
The decision turned on the Tribunal’s factual assessment of competing evidence, and on applying the statutory reasonable-consumer tests. The Tribunal did not treat the fact that another mechanic had inspected the van as resolving the question. It considered whether that inspection had actually identified the fault the applicants later complained of.
The Tribunal recognised that intermittent failures can be difficult to diagnose ([27]). It reasoned that the failure first appeared after about 148 km and likely did not occur during Mr McCurdy’s inspection. The later recurrence of the original sound supported the view that the issue addressed during that inspection was different ([28]). The former owner’s account also supported the existence of an intermittent fault at purchase, because she described a particular driving approach intended to avoid transmission problems ([29]).
Those findings led the Tribunal to accept Mr Kamphuis’ evidence about the fault and parts availability ([30]–[31]). It then applied ACL s 54. The question was whether a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the van’s condition would regard it as acceptable, taking account of such matters as the goods’ nature and price ([8]–[10]). The Tribunal found that a consumer in that position would not regard the van as free from defects and durable ([32]).
The Tribunal also addressed the pre-purchase inspection. ACL s 54(7), set out at [15], provides that goods do not fail the guarantee in specified circumstances where a consumer’s examination ought reasonably to have revealed the problem. The Tribunal accepted that the inspection was not reasonably expected to reveal this intermittent transmission fault, given the difficulty of inspecting the transmission ([34]). Thus, the inspection did not displace the Tribunal’s finding that the guarantee had not been met.
For major failure, the Tribunal relied on ACL s 260(a), which asks whether a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure would have acquired the goods ([35]). The answer in this case was no. The Tribunal emphasised that parts were unavailable, making the fault’s repairability a central consideration ([36]). This was not merely a finding that a fault existed: the nature and consequences of the fault meant it met the statutory major-failure test.
The applicants also had to reject the van within the ACL rejection period. The Tribunal considered the statutory factors in s 262(2), including the type of goods and the amount of use it was reasonable to expect before the failure became apparent ([37]). It found the applicants sought a refund shortly after the 4 September 2019 diagnosis ([33]). On these facts, the diagnosis was the point at which the intermittent fault had become sufficiently apparent for the applicants to seek a refund, and the rejection was timely ([39]).
Finally, the Tribunal treated the return of the van and the refund as linked consequences of rejection. It ordered the applicants to return the goods, and ordered payment of $57,556 ([40], [45]). It separately allowed the claimed transfer, stamp duty, safety inspection, gas certificate and towing expenses, totalling $1,986.50, because it found them reasonably foreseeable and recoverable under ACL s 259(4) ([41]–[42]).
The judgment applied the ACL’s existing statutory framework. It did not purport to change the statutory meaning of acceptable quality, major failure, rejection period, or damages. The key provisions identified and applied were ACL ss 54, 259, 260, 262 and 263 ([8]–[10], [35]–[42]).
For acceptable quality, the Tribunal referred to ACL s 54’s reasonable-consumer assessment, including whether the goods are fit for common purposes, acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe and durable ([10]). It referred to earlier decisions for relevant context: Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney on the time at which quality is assessed ([9]); Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd on durability ([13]); and Campbell v Caravan & RV Central Pty Ltd on expectations relating to a high-cost vehicle ([14]). The Tribunal’s own conclusion was fact-specific: the intermittent fault and unavailable parts meant this van did not meet the guarantee ([32]).
For major failure, the Tribunal applied the words of s 260(a), rather than announcing a new test ([35]–[36]). For rejection timing, it reproduced the s 262(2) test and referred to Nesbit v Porter when considering when a defect may be regarded as apparent ([37]–[39]). It then applied those principles to the applicants’ refund request after diagnosis.
The practical significance of the judgment lies in how the statutory tests were applied to a disputed, intermittent fault. The Tribunal assessed the whole evidentiary picture, including the later recurrence of symptoms, the former owner’s driving practices, and the competing expert accounts. It did not treat a short period of apparently successful operation during one inspection as conclusive.
The judgment also applied its earlier decision in Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd on the Tribunal’s power to order payment of a refund under ACL s 263 ([40]). It found that the applicants’ contractual claims were beyond its jurisdiction and confined its consideration to their ACL claims ([7], [16]). As to costs, it applied the statutory provisions identified at [43] and declined to order the filing fee because the applicants had combined their ACL case with contractual claims outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ([44]).
At [27], the Tribunal said: “Much of this evidence is contradictory and not easily reconciled. I am mindful that the very nature of intermittent failure can be difficult to diagnose.” In plain English, the Tribunal accepted that the evidence did not fit together neatly and that the intermittent nature of the problem made it harder to identify.
At [28], it found it “more likely than not” that the intermittent failure did not occur during Mr McCurdy’s inspection. The significance was that the inspection did not persuade the Tribunal that the applicants’ transmission complaint had been fixed. The later recurrence of the original sound supported the finding that a different problem had been addressed.
At [32], the Tribunal found that a reasonable consumer who knew the van’s condition at purchase would not regard it as “free from defects and durable”. This was the application of the ACL’s acceptable-quality test to the evidence it accepted.
At [36], it stated that the unavailability of parts was “central” to its reasoning on major failure. Put simply, the Tribunal considered the repair difficulty important in deciding whether an informed reasonable consumer would have bought the van.
At [39], it concluded that the applicants rejected the vehicle within the rejection period. The Tribunal connected this conclusion to their refund request shortly after the fault was diagnosed, rather than treating the first appearance of a sound or warning light as the only relevant point.
At [44], it declined to order repayment of the filing fee. Although the applicants succeeded on their ACL claims, the Tribunal considered that combining those claims with contractual claims outside its jurisdiction was relevant to whether a costs order was in the interests of justice.
The judgment is most closely relevant to consumer-goods disputes involving an intermittent defect that is difficult to diagnose at a pre-purchase inspection. Here, the Tribunal accepted that the inspection could not reasonably have been expected to reveal the transmission fault ([34]). The decision therefore illustrates that an inspection which does not identify an intermittent problem does not, by itself, establish that the goods met the acceptable-quality guarantee.
It is also relevant where evidence conflicts about the cause of a problem, whether it was repaired, and whether repair parts are available. The Tribunal assessed the timing and recurrence of symptoms alongside the competing mechanic evidence, rather than simply choosing between the experts in isolation ([27]–[31]).
The judgment may be particularly instructive where the alleged defect affects durability or practical repairability. The Tribunal linked the defect and lack of available parts to both the acceptable-quality finding and the major-failure analysis ([32], [36]). The result does not establish that every difficult-to-repair defect will be a major failure. The statutory test remains whether a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the failure would have acquired the goods, as applied to the evidence in each case ([35]–[36]).
Finally, the decision illustrates a rejection-period issue where the consumer asks for a refund soon after a specialist diagnosis identifies the nature of an intermittent fault. The Tribunal treated diagnosis as important to when the defect became apparent in this particular case ([38]–[39]). It does not provide a fixed rejection period applicable to other goods or circumstances.
The supplied judgment does not contain decisions of later courts or tribunals considering Moss & Anor v Reece Rosvall trading as Preferred Autos. It was delivered on 6 October 2020, and the material provided identifies no subsequent judicial treatment. On this source alone, it is not possible to say whether later decisions followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated it.
Within the judgment itself, Member Cranwell referred to Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 44 for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order payment of a refund under ACL s 263 ([40]). The decision also cited earlier authorities when discussing acceptable quality, durability and the rejection period. Those references show the legal sources the Tribunal considered; they do not establish how Moss was treated after it was decided.
The judgment’s findings depend on the evidence before the Tribunal. It does not decide how a different tribunal should resolve competing technical evidence where the diagnosis, availability of replacement parts, or recurrence of symptoms is disputed. Nor does it set out a general evidentiary rule for intermittent defects.
The decision also does not specify a universal point at which a defect becomes apparent for the purposes of ACL s 262. It found that the applicants’ rejection was timely because they sought a refund shortly after the fault was diagnosed ([33], [39]). The length and circumstances of a rejection period remain tied to the statutory factors in s 262(2), including the goods’ type and expected use ([37]).
The Tribunal found the repair parts unavailable on the evidence it accepted, but the judgment does not establish how unavailability should be proved in other cases, or how the result might differ if parts were available but repair remained difficult, expensive or uncertain. The practical importance of those matters will depend on the evidence and the statutory tests.
The orders require return of the vehicle and payment of the stated sum, but the reasons do not separately break down the $57,556 order into its refund and damages components. The reasons do identify the purchase price as $55,596.50 and allowed damages of $1,986.50 ([2], [42]). The order itself states the total payment and the return requirement ([45]).
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
(a) a vehicle that moves on wheels and is propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is capable of being operated or used in a normal way; or
(b) a caravan.
(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from defects; and
(d) safe; and
(e) durable;
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
(3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:
(a) the nature of the goods; and
(b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and
(c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and
(d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and
(e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.
[T]he context of the section clearly requires that the question of durability be determined by having regard to how long a 'reasonable consumer' would expect the goods to last, taking into account the price paid, the nature of the goods and the representations made about the goods.
A reasonable consumer would also be entitled to expect that such a high cost item would be durable, being capable of safe and effective use over a number of years (or at least many thousands of kilometres).
I have looked into a problem with Ford Transit van Registration number [omitted].
The customer has concerns with Auto transmission. The warning light for the transmission illuminates and a loud squeal type noise occurs.
The diagnosis is an intermittent failure with hydraulic pump and actuators on the transmission. These parts are no longer available and haven't been for the past 6 years.
There is no option for repairing vehicle available.
Automatic Transmission
Diagnose
Found Short in Wiring
Repair as Required
Road Test
I, Chris McCurdy of Coastline 2 Hinterland am an Automatic Transmission Specialist. I have 25 years of experience with Automatic Transmissions and have owned 3 shops over this time.
I received a Ford Transit in the shop from Preferred Autos, they asked for me to diagnose this as a complaint of "Intermittent Problem". I drove the vehicle for approx. 45 minutes to try and find a fault. The Transit eventually threw a check engine light, upon scanning, the fault code was stating a TCM Communication Fault. We then decided to have Max from Advanced Diagnostics in to find faults. As per his attached receipt he stated:
Diagnostic test of engine management system, Check fault codes and data stream, Check and report. No Crank, Trace to no power supply to starter relay. Link relay as per wiring diagram and retest.
We then followed by driving the car for approx. 1 hour, the Transit drove perfectly for this entire time ...
In regards to the pre-purchase inspection, there is possibility that many fault codes were found as this can be caused by a broken wire or a crook earth.
1. Parts can be supplied and are readily available for this Transmission.
2. We have worked on numerous Transmissions of a Fort Transit and have the required tools and scanning equipment to do so.
3. Hydraulic Pump Fault - If a pump has failed you are going to end up with no line pressure so therefore the car would have no forward or reverse.
When [the first applicant] was travelling up to the Sunshine Coast, the transit van made a very noisy loud sound and a warning light had come on the dash (asm light). The vehicle was pulled over and turned off. [The first applicant] left the vehicle parked for approx 1 hour then restarted the vehicle and found to be ok for approx. another ½ hour until the same thing happened. [The first applicant] turned around and returned home stopping a number of times to rest the vehicle.
The vehicle arrived at the workshop and presented no warning light on dash.
The van was scanned for fault codes and found to have transmission codes relating to intermittent hydraulic pump and actuator issues.
After seeking advice in regards to this problem, I found a Ford transit van specialist who gave me the following advice:
1. There are no parts available (hydraulic pump or actuators)
2. Even if I found parts no one has the scan tool equipment to be able to bleed and code parts to vehicle due to the age of vehicle.
3. There is also a high probability that there would be further issues with the auto transmission because pump failure can cause internal problem/failure.
Unfortunately I have no options available to rectify problem with vehicle and the problem will only get worse.
[The first applicant] advised me that the dealer had found someone to rectify vehicle. I am not sure what repairs were carried out, but the vehicle displayed the same symptoms as previously mentioned before she arrived home.
[The first applicant's] concern is a transmission fault. A loud audible sound coming from the transmission.
Coastline have examined the Transit van with the help of an outside source and come up with a power supply issue relating to the starter motor.
I am not sure how this relates to the customers [sic] concern when the initial code stated by them was for TCM communication fault.
My initial scan of the vehicle showed a code for transmission codes relating to intermittent hydraulic pump and actuator issues.
Why this didn't show in any diagnosis of the vehicle by Coastline I'm not sure.
[The first applicant] has had the same issue on driving the vehicle home which doesn't surprise me because the concern hasn't been rectified and I'm still of the opinion that no one can fix issue with any certainty.
On or about 5 June 2019, Mr Stevens inspected the vehicle, I showed him how to drive it as it does have special requirements.
...
On or about 7 July 2019, Mr Stevens and another staff member of Preferred Autos telephoned me and said they could not start the engine or had a problem with transmission.
I knew it was only that they did not drive it in the way advised, so I drove from Burleigh to Arundel to go through it with them and took Paul for a drive to ensure he knew all about it.
(a) Mr Kamphuis stated that there is an intermittent failure relating to the transmission, and that the parts are no longer available.
(b) Mr McCurdy stated that the parts are readily available, and that he has fixed the problem.
(c) The first applicant stated the sound re-occurred after Mr McCurdy "fixed" the problem.
(d) The former owner stated that the motor vehicle had to be driven in a particular way to avoid transmission problems.
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
(b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects:
(i) if they were supplied by description - from that description; or
(ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model - from that sample or demonstration model; or
(c) the goods 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; or
(d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to:
(i) the supplier of the goods; or
(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made;
and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
(2) The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) to become apparent having regard to:
(a) the type of goods; and
(b) the use to which a consumer is likely to put them; and
(c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and
(d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent.
...suffices to enable the consumer to become fully acquainted with the nature of the defect, which, where the cause of breakage or malfunction is not apparent, the consumer can be expected to do by taking the goods to someone, usually or preferably the supplier, for inspection. In this context, therefore, a defect is not 'apparent' until its cause has been identified and the buyer knows what has to be done to fix it, and what that will cost; in other words, until the buyer is in a position to determine whether the defect is substantial.
The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee, if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.
Moss & Anor
Reece Rosvall trading as Preferred Autos [2020] QCAT 384
(2003) 130 FCR 182
The applicants must return the motor vehicle within 7 days, and the respondent must pay them jointly $57,556 within 28 days; no filing-fee costs order was made.