(a) to the extent the claim is based on notions of breach of contract, that the contract did not contain any express guarantees in relation to the operation or functionality of the Kluger;

(b) to the extent the claim is based on notions of there being an obligation to repair the Kluger, the contention that there is no individual cause of action for failure to repair, either at common law or in legislation;

(c) the claim under section 55 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) must fail because the applicant did not disclose a particular purpose for his acquiring the Kluger, beyond the normal use of it as a motor vehicle;

(d) because section 55 is inapplicable on the facts, the applicant's strongest claim is under section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), but on the facts the respondent has not breached any obligation arising from that section;

(e) the applicant is unable to succeed under section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), because he rejected an offer by the respondent to replace the engine at its expense, insisting that the work be performed by another mechanic selected by the applicant. The respondent's submission is that by making this offer, as well as other matters, it took active steps to remedy the situation and fulfilled its obligations under the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), only to be thwarted by the applicant;

(f) the respondent offered to replace the engine, but takes the view that doing so would be unnecessary. It follows that, if caried out, the applicant's insistence on having his mechanic replace the engine would result in 'betterment' - that is, the applicant receiving an unnecessary improvement to the vehicle at another person's expense;

(g) the respondent's mechanic discovered, when inspecting the Kluger for the purposes of considering the applicant's claim, that the vehicle had been involved in a front end collision whilst under the applicant's ownership, which throws doubt on the cause of any defect in the engine which might exist; and

(h) the applicant has driven the Kluger approximately 16,000 km since asserting that its engine needed to be replaced, thus severely diminishing the plausibility of his claim and suggesting that the engine is not defective.

1. The hearing was conducted on 27 October 2025. The applicant gave evidence. The respondent was represented by Counsel, with leave, and its director Mr Danny Haykal gave evidence. Mr Haykal was not the salesperson in the transaction and had little personal knowledge of the matters giving rise to the proceeding. Mr Haykal did have personal knowledge of the applicant making his complaint and the steps taken by the parties thereafter.

1. The Tribunal does not have procedural rules of the kind that exist in the Courts. Under section 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) the Tribunal is empowered to give directions for the expeditious or fair hearing and determination of a proceeding. Directions are given to the parties by the making of an Order, either by a Member in Chambers[1] or at a directions hearing.
2. In this proceeding, directions were first given by way of an Order made on 10 December 2024. That Order first dealt with an irregularity arising from the applicant's mis-naming of the respondent, and then set out a timetable for the applicant to file and serve Points of Claim to more fairly put the respondent on notice of the claims being made and the grounds for them; the respondent to file and serve Points of Defence responding to that document; the respondent having the opportunity to bring a counterclaim[2] and for the applicant to file a Defence to any such counterclaim; and then for the parties to make discovery of documents.
3. In the interests of assisting self-represented parties to understand and comply with their obligations, the Tribunal avoids using the word 'discovery'. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order of 10 December 2025 were in these terms:

if the respondent filed Points of Defence or a counterclaim by the due date,

no later than 11 February 2025, each party must send to each other party and VCAT a copy of all documents in their possession or control which they want to rely on in any hearing of their case or which might be harmful to their case or helpful to the case of another party.

if the respondent has not filed Points of Defence or a counterclaim by the due date,

no later than 11 February 2025 the applicant must send to the other party and VCAT a copy of all documents in the applicant's possession which they want to rely on in any hearing of their case or which might be harmful to their case or helpful to the case of another party.

1. Paragraph 7 of the Order advised the parties of the consequences of the respondent not filing Points of Defence or a counterclaim by the due date, as follows: 'the hearing will be undefended, but the applicant must still prove their case and the respondent may challenge the applicant's evidence and submissions but cannot cross-examine or present evidence on any fact or matter that the respondent could have identified in Points of Defence'.
2. Finally on this topic, paragraph 8 of the Order warned the parties that 'A party will not be permitted to use or rely on any document in the hearing that they have not disclosed to the other parties and sent to VCAT under these orders'.
3. On 16 January 2025 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal seeking extensions of time, and on 22 January 2025 the Tribunal made an Order in Chambers[3] extending all time limits in the Order of 10 December 2024. The effect of this Order was that the applicant's Points of Claim had to be filed and served by 30 January 2025, the respondent's Points of Defence and any counterclaim by 20 February 2025, and discovery of documents completed by 20 March 2025.
4. The respondent filed and served Points of Defence and on 23 August 2025 the Tribunal's registry sent the parties a Notice of Hearing with an Order dated 23 August 2025. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Order supplemented the previous orders for discovery of documents, by stating in paragraph 2 that the documents were to be presented in a paginated, logical sequence, and stating at paragraph 1 that the documents had to be filed and served at least 4 weeks before the hearing. In that sense paragraph 1 further extended the time for the giving of discovery, to 29 September 2025. Paragraph 7 of the Order stated that a party could seek further directions by completing and filing the appropriate form, called the Application for Directions Hearing or Orders.
5. The respondent filed Points of Defence dated 20 February 2025, but did not give discovery of documents. It would not be acceptable in a Court proceeding for a party to simply not comply with an Order for discovery, but many cases in the Tribunal are conducted by parties who are self-represented, and not infrequently do such parties say - eventually - that they did not literally comply with such an Order as a way of signifying that their opponent has given discovery of all relevant documents and that they do not seek to refer to any other documents. The Tribunal's hands are somewhat tied when a self-represented litigant conducts itself in this way because it is up to the opposing party to make an application for discovery in those circumstances if it chooses to do so. It is not the Tribunal's role, and nor does it have the resources, to 'police' its timetable orders. The applicant did not make any application in relation to the respondent's discovery.
6. On Friday, 24 October 2025 Counsel for the respondent filed and served a three-page Outline of Submissions. This was done as a courtesy to the applicant and the Tribunal, rather than being done pursuant to an Order.
7. Remarkably, receipt of this three-page document led the applicant to serve on the respondent - at approximately 3:30am on the morning of the hearing, Monday 27 October 2025 - some 64 pages of material followed by extracts from the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria). In these new documents the applicant gave discovery of additional documents such as copies of SMS correspondence and short videos of the Kluger being started; a quotation by Karworx Essendon of February 2024 in relation to the repair of panel damage; and some documents showing the applicant's use of Uber cars for his children and relating to the applicant's alleged loss of income as an Uber driver himself.
8. The effect of these new documents, if admitted by the Tribunal, would be to amend the applicant's claim at the 'last minute', particularly as the respondent and its legal practitioners could not have known of the documents at 3:30am.[4]
9. In the circumstances, a bit of time was taken up at the beginning of the hearing examining whether the respondent opposed the filing and service of this new bundle of documents, whether the respondent would be prejudiced, and whether any application for an adjournment would be made. The applicant also sought time to have a discussion with his wife as to whether he wanted to proceed with the hearing, and whether he would seek an adjournment on the grounds that the respondent had legal representation.
10. In the end, the applicant said he wished to proceed with the hearing. He then handed up a folder of these new documents. As I said to the applicant in the hearing, they had obviously been prepared with a good deal of care, in much the way that a lawyer would prepare a written submission with exhibits. The respondent said that it was content to proceed with the hearing and did not object to the new documents being received by the Tribunal or any amendment of the applicant's claim which followed from the filing of those new documents.

1. As I said above, Mr Haykal of the respondent was not involved in the sale of the Kluger to the applicant, and only had personal knowledge of the complaint being made and the steps taken by the parties thereafter. As such much of what he said amounted to assertions of what the respondent 'would have done' based on his understanding of what the respondent usually does in conducting its business. Mr Haykal could not directly contradict the applicant on much of his evidence, and so the respondent's challenges to the applicant's evidence were largely based on submissions that his evidence was implausible and contradictory.
2. I do accept Mr Haykal's evidence that the types of cars which the respondent usually sells are 'high-end, prestige vehicles' and that this Kluger would not have been offered for sale in the normal course of things. What happened here was that the Kluger was owned by one of the respondent's former subcontractors (a salesperson), and he traded in the Kluger in a transaction with the respondent, and then conducted the sale of the Kluger on behalf of the respondent.
3. It seems that if the Kluger had not come from the subcontractor, the respondent would have disposed of it through the normal motor trade channel of sending it off to auction. However, Mr Haykal did not seek to deny - and nor could he - that the respondent had sold the Kluger to the applicant in its capacity as a motor car trader.
4. The applicant's evidence was to the effect that he bought the Kluger on 17 October 2023. The next day he noticed white/grey smoke coming from the vehicle. He contacted the salesperson - 'Mac' - who asked the applicant to bring the car to the dealership on 23 October 2023 so that the respondent could get the car checked by its mechanic. On 20 October 2023 the applicant sent an SMS which he submits constituted rejection of the Kluger.
5. Page 19 of the new bundle of documents contains an SMS from the applicant to the respondent on 19 October 2023, in which the applicant wrote, 'The squeaky sound is still there when you press brakes. Also when turning right or left there is a slight knocking sound from the steering. Additionally there is a lot of white whitish grey smoke when I start the car, what could it be. Can you please get it check(ed)'.
6. Pages 20-21 of the new bundle of documents contains an SMS from the applicant to the respondent on 20 October 2023, in which the applicant wrote, 'Thanks for your call yesterday. I had a check with local mechanic and they say the smoke coming out on start and revving the acceleration shows some issues with engine. You suggested to come on Monday to get it checked by your mechanic that I can come today if you can arrange the check and fixing. Please fix the issues appropriately otherwise I want to return the car as soon as possible as whole family is stressed due to this issue. Thanks for your understanding'. [Emphasis added]
7. The respondent replied, 'bring it Monday. I'll take it to my mechanic and I'll sort it out for you thank you'.
8. Page 21 of the new bundle of documents contains an SMS from the applicant to the respondent on 24 October 2023, in which the applicant wrote, 'As discussed car has been dropped to your showroom and keys handed over. Please get the comprehensive testing and fixing a problem with complete engine and exhaust, including fuel injectors, coolant engine oil mixing, if any cracks, sensors et cetera causing this issue. Please also ask your mechanic to share the report testing results. Also please get the brakes done properly. Please let me know the time when the car will be ready. Don't want to upset and stressed the kids. Thanks for your understanding'.
9. On 25 October 2023 the respondent advised the applicant by an SMS message that the respondent's mechanic was picking the car up in the morning. On 30 October 2023 the respondent advised the applicant that the car was still with the mechanic. On 1 November 2023 the respondent advised the applicant that it had just collected the applicant's car from the mechanic, and it was being cleaned. The respondent wrote, 'They've changed the oil to thicker oil. The service they done when we've done the roadworthy they put thin oil and I think they put more than normal. It's all good now. Let me know what time you can pick (it up)'.[5]
10. The applicant replied, 'Which thick oil they have put now. Can you tell me the specs', to which the respondent replied, 'Brother I don't have a clue. I give it to him to do it. I'm just telling you what he told me'.
11. The applicant replied, 'As discussed, I am taking the car conditionally based on agreement that I will check it. If the issue is not resolved or any other issues found, then you will take return of the car. Thanks for your understanding and support'. Two minutes later the applicant wrote, 'As discussed please also get the service and test report from the mechanic who worked on it'. The respondent replied, 'Let's be positive about this. Drive it see how you go and let me know. I'm sure it will be fine'.[6]
12. There is no suggestion from the respondent that these SMS messages, which certainly appear to have come from 'Mac' who then worked for the respondent as a subcontractor and had been the owner of the Kluger, were sent without the actual or ostensible authority of the respondent.
13. The above exchange shows the following:

(a) Regrettably, the applicant seems to have paid a lot more attention to the condition of the Kluger after buying it than before.

(b) The applicant did not expressly refer to provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), but of course the legislation does not require a purchaser to expressly refer to them. The important issue is the substance of the communications.

(c) The applicant identified defects in the Kluger - a squeak in the brakes, a slight knocking sound in the steering, and a quantity of white grey smoke being emitted on starting. These defects as described do not amount to a 'major failure' of the Kluger within the meaning of that term in the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria). I will return to this point.

(d) The respondent's request for the vehicle, so that the respondent could have its mechanic attempt to identify defects, is consistent with the respondent taking the steps required of it when a purchaser of a car identifies defects which do not amount to a 'major failure'.

(e) It is unsurprising as a matter of simple logic that the applicant was unimpressed by the respondent saying that the mechanic had supplied 'thicker oil'. It might well be the case in some situations that the type of oil used in an engine could be very important and that replacing the oil was appropriate. However, the respondent's description in the brief SMS message would not instil confidence in a purchaser.

(f) The applicant's requests of 24 October 2023, on page 21 of the bundle, could and should have been much more carefully expressed. The Tribunal understands that people express themselves in shorthand, and write quickly, when sending SMS messages and that they do not compose SMS messages with the same care as they would when drafting a formal letter. I also observe that several of the SMS messages which I have quoted above contain the 'praying hands' emoji to signify that the performance of requested steps would be appreciated.

(g) The applicant is an engineer, and I do not doubt that if he was writing on behalf of a client, he would express himself carefully. In the SMS communications, though, he used expressions consistent with him asking the respondent to do things, rather than demanding that they be done. He wrote, 'Please get the comprehensive testing and fixing a problem with complete engine and exhaust, including fuel injectors, coolant engine oil mixing, if any cracks, sensors et cetera causing this issue. ... Also please get the brakes done properly'. The use of the words 'complete engine' are unfortunate but I interpret them to mean that the applicant was asking that the engine be completely repaired, and that he was not saying that he was demanding a replacement - a complete engine. I interpret the words 'including fuel injectors, coolant engine oil mixing, if any cracks, sensors et cetera' not as meaning that the applicant was asserting that the injectors needed to be replaced, that there were cracks, or that sensors needed to be replaced. Rather, I see those words as indicating that the applicant had heard from his mechanic a list of the things which might cause smoke in an engine, or that he had found general information to that effect elsewhere. I do not interpret the words as meaning that the applicant was asserting that there were specific problems with the injectors or sensors, or that there were cracks anywhere. Because of this, I interpret the applicant's SMS of 24 October 2023 as only amounting to a request that the respondent get the Kluger tested.

(h) In the circumstances, I conclude that the applicant's SMS message of 20 October 2023 which contained the words, 'Please fix the issues appropriately otherwise I want to return the car as soon as possible as whole families stressed due to this issue', did not constitute the applicant rejecting the Kluger.

1. The applicant gave evidence that 'on 10 January 2024, at the respondent's request, he entrusted the Kluger to Karworx Essendon for repairs. The respondent agreed to bear the cost of these repairs'.[7]
2. In his oral evidence, the applicant said that he had a discussion with the respondent about this, which amounted to the respondent persuading him not to exercise his right of cooling off under the contract for the purchase of the Kluger. In fact, though, the contractual cooling off period had expired by then.
3. The applicant said that before giving possession of the Kluger to Karworx Essendon, he had his own mechanic, Airport Toyota, inspect it. He said that by this time, the respondent had had 3 months to repair the Kluger but it had not done so. The applicant did not regard the Kluger as having been repaired. He had kept driving it, but he observed that it would blow smoke and sometimes lose power. The applicant was using the Kluger as an Uber car, as well as for his personal use, and he was concerned that Uber might deregister him as a driver on the basis of customers complaining about the condition of the Kluger.
4. Neither party has given discovery of a document from Karworx Essendon concerning repairs in January 2024.
5. The only Karworx Essendon document presented to the Tribunal is its estimate/quotation dated 15 February 2024, addressed to the applicant, concerning panel damage.[8] Karworx Essendon gave an estimate of $1,463.00 including GST for replacing the front bumper bar and a guard liner, and carrying out necessary painting.
6. Neither party has discovered an invoice from Karworx Essendon, or any other panel repairer, for that work however the applicant indicated in his evidence that the damage had been sustained when the Kluger struck a kangaroo, and that the panel damage was repaired. Certainly, if the applicant was concerned at Uber customers giving him bad reviews, then it stands to reason he would have had the panel damage repaired promptly.
7. On 16 April 2024 the applicant wrote to the respondent, in much more formal terms than the previous SMS messages.[9] The applicant wrote that Karworx Essendon told the applicant in April 2024 that 'all the issues have been fixed including the engine and smoke issues', and that he collected the Kluger at around 3:30pm on 12 April 2024. The applicant said he observed that the vehicle was still 'throwing smoke' and that the engine was 'missing' when driving at 90/100 km/h. In this email the applicant expressly referred to section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), and said that he was formally requesting the full refund of the purchase price, reimbursement of the expenses he incurred in renting an alternative car when the Kluger was not available, and any future car rental cost he incurs. He wrote that if these claims were not addressed within 7 business days he would explore further legal avenues to seek redress. That is, he did not specifically say that he would reject the vehicle.
8. Mr Haykal replied on behalf the respondent,[10] saying that the statutory warranty under the Motor Car Traders Act 1986 (Vic) did not apply because the Kluger was too old. He wrote, 'We have made every effort to resolve the issues with your vehicle in good faith, including arranging and financing repairs through Karworx Essendon. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the vehicle's problems have persisted. ... Given the circumstances and the age and mileage of the vehicle, the options for recourse under the warranty are limited. However, I am committed to finding a feasible resolution for both parties. Let's discuss how we can move forward from here. Unfortunately buying the vehicle back is not an option. I am available for a meeting or a call ...'
9. Whilst the references to the Motor Car Traders Act 1986 (Vic) are irrelevant, in that this Act does not exclude the consumer guarantee provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), I can only interpret the words 'buying the vehicle back is not an option' as signifying to the applicant that the respondent would oppose any submission on his part that he was entitled to reject the Kluger.
10. On 8 May 2024 the applicant wrote to Mr Haykal and advised that he had obtained an estimate of $12,877.90 from Airport Toyota for the replacement of the Kluger's engine with a second-hand engine. The applicant sought payment of that sum within 7 days.[11] The respondent did not reply and in due course the applicant issued this proceeding.
11. On pages 58 & 59 of the new bundle of documents, the applicant discloses records of having spent $887.45 on Uber fares, which he said was the cost of getting two of his children, aged 11 and 14, to and from school when the Kluger could not be used. He said that both children are under 15 years of age and that he did not consider public transport to be safe.
12. The applicant also gave evidence that he was making an income as an Uber driver of around $1,000.00 a month, using the Kluger for that purpose until January 2024. The applicant had not gone to the extent of giving discovery of tax records but did produce a history. He explained that he is an engineer by profession and looked at the Uber driving as a spare time second job, which he was performing to maintain the living standards of his family.
13. When the applicant was cross-examined, a few factual matters which potentially favoured the respondent emerged:

(a) The applicant inspected the Kluger before purchasing it. He test drove it. He noticed some issues with the Kluger before he agreed to buy it, namely some noise in the brakes but the salesperson said - orally - they were 'small issues' which the respondent would fix. The applicant conceded that he had no written evidence to verify this point, such as SMS messages.

(b) The respondent supplied a Certificate of Roadworthiness ('RWC') with the Kluger. This occurred after the applicant had advised the dealer of the noise in the brakes and the 'small issues'. The applicant appreciates that the RWC was issued by an independent person, but he notes that he does not know what steps the certifier took before issuing the RWC.

(c) When the applicant took the Kluger to his mechanic to check, after he had purchased it, he did not ask his mechanic to repair anything. He only asked the mechanic to check the vehicle. The mechanic told the applicant that he observed smoke. The applicant had not seen smoke before he purchased the Kluger, and by way of explanation he said that when he did the test drive, he did not rev the engine when the Kluger was stationary.

(d) The applicant says that now, smoke is seen on starting the Kluger when it is stationary.

(e) The last time the applicant saw the Kluger emit smoke was on 18 October 2025. When Counsel for the respondent suggested that was quite close to the hearing, the applicant answered that he had driven the Kluger to the hearing. He said his wife also drives the Kluger.

(f) The applicant concedes that the respondent does not conduct business as a mechanic, and that when in October 2023 the respondent took the Kluger to its mechanic, that mechanic changed the oil. The applicant conceded that at that point the respondent did everything that the applicant had then asked for, and that the respondent relied on a mechanic's advice.

(g) Addressing issues under section 55 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), which refers to fitness for disclosed purposes, the applicant said that using a passenger vehicle for the purpose of being an Uber driver was not a 'commercial use'. The precise meaning of that phrase to the applicant was not explored in cross examination but I gained the impression that it may relate to the issue of whether an owner would pay a higher premium for insurance on an Uber car compared to a private use vehicle. Counsel for the respondent suggested that the applicant's 'purpose' of acquiring the Kluger was simply to use it as a car, so that in this case there was no important difference between sections 54 and 55 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria). The applicant summarised the 'rules' which Uber imposes on drivers, and under which it can remove a driver's access to the Uber app if their car is too old or of unacceptable appearance.

(h) The applicant had ceased using the Kluger as an Uber car by January 2024.

(i) When the applicant took the Kluger to Airport Toyota, it told him that it suspected that the Kluger had a poor service history and that it had sludge in the engine.[12] Airport Toyota quoted $754.00 to carry out a proper inspection of the Kluger, but the applicant did not proceed.

(j) The applicant relies on the Airport Toyota documents, amongst other things, to prove the defects which he alleges. He acknowledges that because he did not proceed to get a proper inspection by Airport Toyota, his evidence from that source is weak.

(k) Airport Toyota told the applicant that they could repair the engine in the Kluger, but that replacing the engine was 'better'.

(l) The applicant did not accept Karworx's quote to repair the panel damage to the Kluger. There is no evidence of how that panel damage was repaired. The applicant is not a mechanic but he believes this front end collision was not detrimental to the engine.

1. In the hearing the applicant played some short videos of the Kluger, which he had filmed on his mobile phone. As neither party called an expert witness, these videos must be seen 'as is' without the benefit of a technical explanation. All I can say about the videos is that they suggest that if a person starts the Kluger cold, and revs the engine as if in preparation for a drag race at the Thunderdome, some white smoke comes from the exhaust. I cannot conclude from the videos that the smoke is evidence of a defect. Occasionally one sees cars accelerate rapidly on the freeway, and emit smoke, only for the smoke to end when the car goes back to a cruising speed. That sort of event does not prove that the car which accelerated has a defect. The fact that the smoke is white, rather than black or dirty, suggests that it might not be the result of a defect.

1. Considering all the evidence, and bearing in mind the fundamental principle that the applicant in a civil legal proceeding bears the onus of proof, I must dismiss this proceeding. The applicant has simply not proven his case.
2. The applicant bought a used car. It had travelled 123,000 km over some 12 years. This was quite mild use. The Kluger is not a 'high mileage' vehicle.
3. The Kluger is not as perfect as a new car would be. Nor did it cost as much as a new model. When it is alleged that a supplier of goods has not satisfied the consumer guarantee under section 54(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) that the goods must be of acceptable quality, the definition of that term in sections 54(2) & (3) must be considered_._ They provide that 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

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 ...

1. The definition in sections 54(2) & (3) puts the goods which are the subject of a dispute in context. Read with the concept of 'a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods' sections 54(2) & (3) operate such that a 12 year old car is not expected or required to be as free from defects, safe and durable as a new car. The Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) requires the respondent to have sold this Kluger in a condition which was as acceptable as an average 12 year old Kluger of similar mileage. A bit of smoke produced during heavy acceleration does not prove a defect.
2. If one assumed, for the moment, that the Kluger had some defects for the purposes of section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), sections 259 - 261 dictate the remedies which are available to the consumer. Determining whether the goods have experienced a 'major failure' is central. Put simply, if goods are defective the consumer is usually entitled to a remedy.[13] If there is a major failure the consumer can dictate the remedy (for example, to reject the goods and be refunded the purchase price, or to be awarded damages); but if the failure is not major the supplier can dictate the remedy (for example to repair the goods).
3. As I have indicated above, I find that the Kluger did not exhibit a major failure. The fact that the applicant drove the Kluger to the hearing in October 2025, two years after he purchased it, establishes this fact.
4. The respondent did not deny the applicant a remedy. Even though Mr Haykal of the respondent did not consider that it was necessary to replace the engine, the respondent offered to do this at its own expense and the applicant rejected that offer. Having elected to reject the offer, and to issue proceedings which has caused the respondent to expend time and money to defend itself, the applicant cannot now change his mind.
5. The applicant has the burden of proof. He has some 'commonsense arguments' to the effect that the engine is defective, but he does not have sufficient evidence to prove this. The videos don't. The superficial cost estimate from Airport Toyota doesn't.
6. If the applicant had established that the respondent was liable, his claim for loss of income might have failed for lack of evidence, and his claim for the cost of his children getting to and from school by riding in Uber cars might have failed on the basis that it was not an example of damages but rather of an expenditure which the applicant simply chose to make. However, because the applicant has not proven that the respondent is liable, it is unnecessary to drill into the damages claimed.
7. The proceeding must be dismissed and I will reserve costs.

[1] Orders are also made by registrars of the Tribunal, under formal delegations.

[2] The respondent did not bring a counterclaim.

[3] These extensions of time were granted without reference to the respondent, but the respondent's rights are protected under this procedure because it could seek directions itself.

[4] In Golem v Transport Accident Commission [2002] VCAT 319; [2002] 19 VAR 265 the Tribunal observed that section 98(1)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), which speaks of the Tribunal's obligation to conduct each proceeding with as little formality and technicality as practicable as the requirements of the act and the proper consideration of the matters before it permit did not mean that 'Rafferty's Rules' prevail in the Tribunal. This important observation seems to been overlooked frequently since the Covid pandemic and the increase in parties filing documents electronically.

[7] This is stated at paragraph 4 of the applicant's points of claim dated 29 January 2025.

[8] Page 57 of the new bundle of documents.

[9] Page 38 of the new bundle of documents.

[10] Page 39 of the new bundle of documents.

[11] Page 40 of the new bundle of documents.

[12] In a nutshell, if a car's engine oil is not replaced when it should be, it becomes thick with impurities and through dehydration. This puts strain and pressure on engine components and by spreading impurities it can cause components to wear.

[13] In saying this I exclude limitation periods and other sophisticated topics.