1. When asked by the Tribunal if the faults were consistent or intermittent, the applicant stated that they were 'consistently intermittent'.
2. The applicant claimed that, between 2022 and 2024, he took the car to the respondents 13 times to repair these issues with no success, and 'the respondents cannot advise him if a remedy will ever be available'.[4]
3. The applicant further claimed that a number of other faults presented with the car. Specifically:

(a) On or about 25 April 2023, the car suffered 'a complete electronic and mechanical shutdown whilst travelling.'[5] This issue occurred once, on this date only, and has not occurred since. The applicant claimed that the reason for this shutdown 'remains unclear', however he submitted that 'there is a risk it could reoccur without warning'.[6]

(b) The car was subject to 3 safety recalls, which have all been rectified.

(c) The air conditioning of the car failed however it was resolved on the third attempt to repair.

1. The applicant maintained that the faults with the navigation system and the speed limit assist function were safety defects and for this reason the car was not of acceptable quality and unfit for purpose.
2. He stated that the speed limit assist works on the speed limit data collected via maps and adjusts during driving.
3. The applicant relied on numerous studies and publications to support his contention that the speed assist function is a safety function and that the malfunction of this system renders the car unsafe.
4. He relied on a study from the University of Leeds which concluded that speed assist reduces fatalities.[7] The applicant further stated that the NCAP and ANCAP safety ratings factor in speed assist when assessing the safety standards and star rating of vehicles.
5. He provided evidence in the form of numerous video recordings which demonstrated the nature of the issue with the speed assist function. The common issue identified in all the videos was that the speed assist function would take too long to change when the car entered a new speed zone. In one video, the car was travelling in an 80 zone, where the speed assist was showing 80, however, when the car turned into a 50 zone, the road sign displayed 50 while the speed assist still showed 80 for at least a further 30 seconds. The applicant stated that the car travelled for at least 400 metres before the speed assist changed to 50.
6. The applicant maintained that the speed assist showing 80 for approximately 400 metres or 30 seconds longer than it should renders the car unsafe and exposes him to potential charges of driving above the speed limit.
7. Further, the applicant gave evidence that the instructions given by the navigation system were frequently wrong and incoherent. He stated that the system would give an instruction that was wrong and that would provide a distraction for the driver.
8. He provided a number of video recordings and photographs demonstrating the issues with the navigation system. The videos show that the satellite navigation system is functioning and providing road maps and directions, however, the applicant stated that some of the directions were wrong, confusing and incoherent. The videos showed the maps system giving instructions to take steps that are not possible (such as a direction to right turn where only a left turn is possible). The applicant provided a number of examples where the directions were wrong.
9. He stated that, because the satellite navigation system gives incorrect instructions, the driver becomes confused and distracted. Because of this distraction, the applicant stated, safe driving is compromised.
10. The applicant further stated that on 7 June 2023[8] he wrote to the CEO of the first respondent and stated that he rejected the vehicle. The respondents, he said, did not accept the rejection.
11. The applicant maintained that, because of these faults, he and his family have not driven the car since 2023 and no longer use it as a family car. He stated that they have only held onto it because of this proceeding.
12. Under cross examination, Mr Parma conceded that:

(a) On 5 July 2023 the car recorded an odometer reading of 25,758 km.

(b) On the day of the hearing (6 October 2025) the car's odometer recorded a reading of 36,875 km.

(c) Between 5 July 2023 and 6 October 2025, he and his family did drive the car and travelled in excess of 11,000 km in it.

(d) While he sent BMW Australia (the manufacturer) an email rejecting the car on 7 June 2023, he did not send the second respondent (the supplier) an email rejecting the vehicle until 15 August 2024.

(e) The car was supplied with a handbook, but he didn't read all of it.

(f) He doesn't recall whether he specifically discussed the speed limit assist function with Michael (the salesman for the second respondent) at the time of the sale but recalled that he did tell Michael that he wanted the safest car available.

(g) The issue with the navigation system does not manifest every time, but often and frequently.

(h) The episode he describes as a 'complete electronic and mechanical shutdown' whilst travelling on 25 April 2023 has not occurred again.

(i) The air conditioning issue, and the items related to the three recalls, have been fixed.

1. In cross-examination, the first respondent put to the applicant that the satellite navigation system and the speed assist function are not fundamental safety features, but rather that are put in the 'driver assistance' category and appropriately described as 'driver assist' functions. The applicant rejected this and maintained that they are safety features.

1. The first respondent admits that it is deemed to be the manufacturer of the vehicle for the purposes of section 7 of the ACL.
2. The first respondent maintains that they are not the supplier of the car for the purposes of the ACL.
3. Furthermore:

(a) They deny that the car is not of acceptable quality or unfit for purpose, or that they have failed to comply with the ACL.

(b) They maintain that the primary purpose of the vehicle is to provide transportation of people and limited quantities of luggage.

(c) They state that the driver assist features of the car do not relieve the driver of the task of driving and do not absolve the vehicle operator of responsibility.

(d) They do not admit that the satellite navigation system was subject to errors or that the integrated speed assist system does not operate as designed.

(e) They state that the navigation system functions as intended.

(f) The errors alleged by the applicant relate to the mapping information that is accessed by the navigation system.

(g) The mapping information is provided by a third party, Tom Tom.

(h) They state that, to the extent that there are any errors in the car's mapping information, they are errors of the third party that supplied that information and they are very minor and inconsequential errors.

(i) They maintain that a reasonable consumer would understand that there is a clear distinction between 'safety' features such as braking, air bag and side impact detection functions, and 'driver aid' functions such as navigation or speed limit detection systems.

(j) The faults the applicant alleges are not safety faults nor failures of the car to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.

(k) They deny that that the faults complained of amount to major failure.

(l) That the alleged faults are not safety defects nor do they make the car unsafe.

(m) That the car is durable and continues to be driven.

(n) They maintain that the applicant was not entitled to reject the vehicle by giving notice to the first respondent (the manufacturer).

1. The respondents relied on the evidence of their expert witness, Mr Clive Discipline. He stated that he was a Technical Support Engineer with BMW Group Australia for 22 years and a BMW Master Technician, with a total of 28 years' experience. He provided his report dated 15 August 2024 and gave evidence at the hearing.
2. Mr Discipline's report outlined the testing of the applicant's vehicle, and can be summarised as follows:

(a) On Monday 12 August 2024, he attended South Yarra BMW to evaluate the car for navigation related concerns as outline by the applicant.

(b) He confirmed that the installed navigation map was version 'Australia/NZ EVO 2023' prior to commencing the test drive.

(c) He installed a GoPro to monitor the central display, instrument cluster and the road while driving.

(d) He set various navigation destinations around the South Yarra, Malvern East and Chadstone areas.

(e) He reported error locations at a speed sign display at the intersection of Princes Highway and Warrigal Road, Chadstone and Karma Street Malvern East.

(f) Specifically, he found errors in the speed sign display at the intersection of Princes Highway and Warrigal Road. When approaching the intersection, the speed sign display in the vehicle changes from 80 km/h to 60 km/h where the actual road speed signs for these two roads display 80 km/h on the Princes Highway and 60 km/h on Warrigal Road.

(g) He then updated the installed navigation road map to 'Australia/NZ 2024' via USB and repeated the test drive and map evaluation.

(h) At no time did he experience any system shutdown (which the applicant says occurred on 25 April 2023).

(i) On his return to South Yarra BMW after the test drive, he reviewed the vehicle control unit data from when the vehicle presented on 6 May 2023. He found no related errors stored in the vehicle however there were 7 unrelated minor errors stored.

(j) He concluded in his report that the overall operation of the navigation and map guidance is reliable and provides supportive information to the driver.

(k) However, when exiting Karma Avenue, the arrow display function showed the future guidance rather than the immediate left turn, which he conceded could cause some temporary driver confusion. He stated that this is not a fault, but it is consistent with the operation of the navigation system.

(l) He found the presence of a mirror ball hanging from the rear-view mirror to be a concerning distraction, especially when the sun was directed into the driver's eyes and causes flashing across the dashboard. He considered that this type of accessory has the potential to significantly impair the drivers visual focus and attention.

1. Mr Discipline supplemented his report with oral evidence at the hearing. He stated that he tested the navigation and speed display system in the car for two hours on 12 August 2024 and found it to be operating as intended.
2. The arrow guidance for the maps related to future turns and that speed display usually corrected the speed after a few seconds of moving in a different speed zone.
3. He proceeded to explain that the maps and navigation updates are created by Tom Tom, the company that gathers raw data such as changes to speed signs and new roads and streets in new areas. Tom Tom then provides the data to BMW, who takes it and overlays it with information BMW wants to include (such as the inclusion of EV charging stations).
4. The Tom Tom data and the BMW overlays are then supplied to the customers as software updates.
5. He stated that the navigation system and the related speed assist display function via pre-embedded 'way points' in the raw data file that comes from Tom Tom. The file contains multiple 'way points' throughout the road.
6. These pre-embedded 'way points' determine the information the system provides to the driver. However, they are overridden by the cameras in the car if or when the cameras pick up something on the road that is different to the data. This explains why there is frequently a lag in the changes to speeds when entering a different speed zone.
7. Mr Discipline stated that the system can and does correct itself. He explained that the issues with the speed display that Mr Parma complains about are not faults but rather the way in which the system operates.
8. Under cross-examination Mr Discipline stated that:

(a) When the speed limit changes and the speed assist does not reflect the change, the system is working and it corrects itself when it hits the next way point.

(b) Issues sometimes arise when way points are incorrectly placed on the map.

(c) That the speed assist may trigger a 60 speed when it is 80 on the road because it has been recorded as a way point in the system, which the engineers in Germany have confirmed.

(d) There are multiple way points on each lane, and each direction of the road has different way points.

(e) That his report failed to record numerous instances where issues arose, which he stated were oversights.

(f) The map guidance is operating and has its own method of operation.

(g) Other map systems operate differently and have their own algorithms.

(h) The maps themselves are multi-layered and he does not know whether the algorithm is operating correctly, given that he is not the engineer who built the system.

(i) That the car and the map system are operating as designed but there might be some pre-embedded software programming 'glitching'.

(j) The system works differently on different streets because it depends on the pre-embedded data.

(k) That the navigation system depends on many variables including the pre-embedded Tom Tom Software, the overlaid BMW programming, real life data, real time traffic information and cameras.

(l) Whilst the maps system may give the driver some inaccurate or confusing information, and lead to some temporary driver confusion, the driver has the ultimate responsibility to drive safely.

1. The applicant relies on sections 54, 55, 259 and 260 of the ACL, which relevantly provide:

Section 54 - Guarantee as to acceptable quality

(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;

there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.

(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).

Section 55 - Guarantee as to fitness for any disclosed purpose

(a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;

there is a guarantee that the goods are reasonably fit for any disclosed purpose, and for any purpose for which the supplier represents that they are reasonably fit.

(2) A disclosed purpose is a particular purpose (whether or not that purpose is a purpose for which the goods are commonly supplied) for which the goods are being acquired by the consumer and that:

(a) the consumer makes known, expressly or by implication, to:

(i) the supplier; or

(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made; or

(b) the consumer makes known to the manufacturer of the goods either directly or through the supplier or the person referred to in paragraph (a)(ii).

(3) This section does not apply if the circumstances show that the consumer did not rely on, or that it was unreasonable for the consumer to rely on, the skill or judgment of the supplier, the person referred to in subsection (2)(a)(ii) or the manufacturer, as the case may be.

Section 259 ACL - Action against suppliers of goods

(1) A consumer may take action under this section if:

(a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to the consumer; and

(b) a guarantee that applies to the supply under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 3‑2 (other than sections 58 and 59(1)) is not complied with.

(2) If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:

(a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or

(b) if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time - the consumer may:

(i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or

(ii) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection.

(3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:

(a) subject to section 262, notify the supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the ground or grounds for the rejection; or

(b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.

(4) 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.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier.

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3).

(7) The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.

Section 260 - When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure

(1) A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if:

(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.

1. I am satisfied that the software update in February 2022 introduced some issues with the operation of the satellite navigation system and the related speed assist function. However, I am not satisfied that the applicant has discharged his burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that, because of these issues, the car is not of acceptable quality.
2. I am satisfied that the car was of acceptable quality at the time of the supply in August 2018. It presented with no issues for three and a half years. At their highest, the issues the applicant complains about after the software update in February 2022 can be described as momentary intermittent glitches in the operation of the navigation and related speed assist features.
3. On the totality of the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that the navigation system and the speed assist feature are functioning as they are designed to function. The applicant does not contend that the systems are not operating. Rather, he contends that the navigation system malfunctions intermittently by giving wrong and confusing directions. Similarly with the speed assist feature, the applicant does not contend that it is not working but rather that it takes too long to display the correct speed when speed limits change.
4. The evidence of Mr Discipline confirms that both features are operational. Mr Discipline concedes that the displays are sometimes incorrect or slow in adapting to the road conditions, but he has provided the only evidence in this proceeding regarding the functionality of these systems.
5. The applicant did not produce any expert witness to give evidence on the functionality of the systems he asserts are defective. Therefore, the best and only expert evidence I have before me of the way these systems are designed to operate is that of Mr Discipline.
6. I accept as the best evidence before me his evidence that the navigation system and the speed assist display features function via pre-embedded 'way points' in the raw data file that comes from Tom Tom. The file contains multiple 'way points' throughout the road and that these pre-embedded 'way points' determine the information the system provides to the driver.
7. I further accept that the 'way points' are overridden by the cameras in the car if or when the cameras pick up something on the road that is different to the pre-embedded data. I accept that this explains why there is frequently a lag in the changes to speeds when entering a different speed zone, as shown on the video recordings tendered in evidence.
8. I accept that the issues with the speed display that the applicant complains about are not faults but rather the way in which the system operates. I am satisfied that these are not defects but rather limitations within its functionality.
9. Similarly, having considered the video recordings of the maps and navigation system, I find that the navigation system is indeed operating according to its own method of operation. I accept Mr Discipline's evidence that other map systems operate differently and are engineered with their own algorithms. I further accept that the navigation system depends on many variables including the pre-embedded Tom Tom software, the overlaid BMW programming, real life data, real time traffic information and cameras, which all work together to provide the navigation feature to the driver. While I accept that the navigation system intermittently gives incorrect directions and instructions, I find that these issues are minor and intermittent and do not render the car of unacceptable quality.
10. On the totality of evidence, I find that the navigation and the speed assist display features are operational and perform within the limitations of their respective functionalities.
11. Furthermore, I reject the applicant's attempt to categorise the issues with the navigation system and the speed assist function as safety features, and I further reject that the issues the applicant raises about these features render the car unsafe.
12. I am not persuaded that they are integral to the safe operation of the vehicle. I accept the respondent's contention that the navigation system and the speed assist function are features intended to provide assistance to the driver. While I accept that the intermittent and incorrect information given by the maps and speed assist functions may lead to some temporary driver confusion, I find that these features do not render the car unsafe, because it is ultimately the responsibility of the driver to drive the car in a safe manner and drive to the conditions of the road.
13. The applicant relied on a study from the University of Leeds which, he maintained, supported his contention that speed assist display is a safety feature and that any failure of the feature renders a car unsafe.
14. I do not accept the applicant's contention. On the applicant's own analysis of the study, at its highest, the study concludes that speed assist reduces fatalities. It does not conclude that a car without this function is unsafe. I consider the applicant's reliance on such material to be misconceived, and his conclusions laboured and unpersuasive.
15. For completeness, I further find that the car has no other identified issues that could render it not of acceptable quality.
16. The applicant's evidence that the car suffered 'a complete electronic and mechanical shutdown whilst travelling' on or about 25 April 2023 has not been explained by any mechanical or other expert evidence that would confirm that this is an unresolved defect with the car.
17. In any event, I am satisfied that this issue has only occurred once, on 25 April 2023 only, and has not occurred since. The applicant's claim that there is a risk it could reoccur without warning is insufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the car is defective.
18. Furthermore, the other issues raised by the applicant, namely, that the car was subject to 3 safety recalls and the failure of the air conditioning, have all been rectified.
19. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of section 54 of the ACL.

1. I find that the primary purpose of a car is to transport its occupants and its load. I further find that the primary purpose of a luxury car such as Mr Parma's BMW X3 is to transport its occupants and its load in greater style, performance and comfort than the average car. Whilst some of the features of the navigation and speed assist systems may be confusing to Mr Parma, I am not satisfied that they render the car unfit for purpose.
2. The car is now 7 years old and has travelled over 36,000 kilometres. The issues the applicant complains about manifested in February 2022. It is not disputed that the car travelled over 11,000 kilometres after the issues with the navigation and speed display features first appeared.
3. This evidence, conceded by the applicant in cross-examination, undermines the applicant's evidence in chief, where he stated that the car has not been driven since the issues first appeared and is not being driven because of safety concerns arising from the issues.
4. The car can be driven and indeed has been driven since the issues complained about appeared. On 5 July 2023 the car recorded an odometer reading of 25,758 kilometres. On the day of the hearing (6 October 2025) the car's odometer recorded a reading of 36,875 kilometres. The average usage for Mr Parma and his family pre-July 2023 was approximately 5,100 kilometres per annum. The average usage per annum between July 2023 and October 2025 was around 5,500 kilometres. This does not suggest that the car has not able to fulfil its primary purpose. On the contrary, it is highly probative of the fact that the car has been used to the same extent both before and after the February 2022 software update, when the issues complained about first appeared.
5. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the issues complained about are minor, intermittent and immaterial to the overall operation and purpose of the car as a means of transportation. I accept the oral submissions made by the respondents' representative that the issues the applicant complains about are 'momentary and immaterial discrepancies...immaterial in the context of the overall function of the car both in their duration and their importance in the overall operation of the vehicle'.
6. Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not established on the balance of probabilities that the respondents have not complied with section 55 of the ACL.

1. The applicant has failed to establish that the respondent breached the statutory guarantees that the car be of acceptable quality and fit for purpose as defined in the ACL.
2. Sections 259 and 260 do not apply in circumstances where I do not find that there has been a failure to comply with a consumer guarantee.

1. I am satisfied that the two issues the applicant complains about arise from the functionality of the navigation and speed assist display features. They do not render the car unacceptable in appearance and finish, defective, unsafe or not durable, or unfit for the purposes for which a car is commonly supplied.
2. For the reasons outlined, the proceeding is dismissed.

[1] Supplementary Tribunal Book, page 3, Applicant's Submission Summary.

[2] Supplementary Tribunal Book, page 96.

[3] Supplementary Tribunal Book, page 3, Applicant's Submission Summary, at para [2].

[7] Tribunal Book, page 111: The University of Leeds, Institute of Transport Studies: Carsten and Tate (2005) Intelligent Speed Adaptation: accident savings and cost-benefit analysis Accident Analysis and Prevention.