Tyack v Motosport Industries Brisbane Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 158

[2] Mr Tyack says that since purchase the motorcycle has been plagued with issues both major and minor and the vehicle is unsafe.

[3] The problems have continued despite the vehicle being inspected and serviced.

[4] As at date of hearing the machine had not travelled far, only some 5,000 kilometres. Mr Tyack says when he rides the motorcycle he feels stressed and anxious.

[5] He made a claim under the vehicle warranty but that was refused because the supplier, the respondent Motosport Industries Brisbane Pty Ltd ('Motosport'), could find no fault with the machine.

[6] Mr Tyack applied to the Tribunal on 21 June 2024 for orders that the motorcycle be replaced or his purchase price refunded. He also seeks compensation for expenses incurred, including registration and insurance costs and Tribunal filing fees.

[7] He seeks relief pursuant to the consumer guarantee provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL').

[8] Motosport maintains they have never been able to find a fault with the motorcycle.

[9] Mr Tyack says the motorcycle arrived in Townsville on 25 October 2023 and it failed to start on the first try. It stalled on the first ride in traffic.

[10] In his application for motor vehicle dispute he described the major issue as stalling in dense traffic on multiple occasions from date of the first ride until a 1,000 km computer update was done. He described the minor issues as the engine failing to start, over fuelling, smoke coming from the exhaust intermittently and backfiring.

[11] He says as at date of filing the engine is now 'hunting for idle' and running poorly and using excessive fuel.

[12] When the motorcycle had travelled 480 kms Mr Tyack had it transported to the nearest Ducati workshop, which was in Cairns. That workshop suggested the motorcycle be ridden in Race Mode instead of Street Mode but according to Mr Tyack there was nothing else done and he continued to experience problems.

[13] At 1,009 kms the motorcycle was serviced by Motosport at its Gold Coast workshop, and then returned to Townsville with an updated computer system.

[14] Looking to the service records of Motosport the problem advised to the workshop was that the engine was stalling. There was no mention of hunting for idle as a problem at that stage before the service.

[15] The workshop report details the following findings and workshop response to the complaint made:

Customer has sent bike down to our workshop from north qld, plugged bike into dds, came up that we needed to perform an fuel injection update before we were able to proceed, performed update, bike has run faultlessly for us, asked customer if we could put 70-80 kms on his bike which he agreed to, have ridden bike in all conditions, stop start commuting, faster flowing riding, really hot days, all modes, could not get bike to stall out at all, bike arrived with just over 1,000kms on it, did notice the rear brake has gotten hot and discoloured, checked free play in rear brake lever, was good, checked to see if rear was sticking, it wasn't, looks as though rear brake has been dragging.

[16] On its return to Mr Tyack he found "since the update, these mechanical issues are no longer in a consistent pattern now but are still an ongoing hinderance due to their unpredictability."[1]

[17] Mr Tyack made a request to Ducati head office that Ducati replace the motorcycle but that was refused. Mr Tyack also complained to the Office of Fair Trading, but there was no successful resolution of the problem through that avenue.

[18] Mr Tyack then filed the within Application - Motor Vehicle Dispute in the Tribunal.

[19] According to Motosport's Response to the claim, Motosport are unable to find any fault with the motorcycle.

[20] Mr Tyack submitted video evidence showing, he submits, various problems evident and recorded at various times with the kilometres travelled recorded.

[21] One short video showed a changing idle, but the motorcycle had only travelled 5.6 km when that recording was made. Eight were said to show a difficult start. They were recorded at various distances travelled, from 530 km to the last at 3,839 km. Two were described as showing a smoking exhaust, although it was very hard to see any smoke at all in one and little in the other.

[22] There was a video of the motorcycle stalling whilst being ridden. Mr Tyack was able to restart the motorcycle whilst still mobile however and drive on. Mr Tyack noted that that had occurred at 2,676 km, however the odometer on screen read only 94 km.

[23] An independent Assessor, Mr Dodge, was appointed by the Tribunal to inspect and report on the motorcycle.

[24] According to the Assessor he found the machine to have a "rough/low idle" after initial start-up and whilst the motorcycle was idling the engine commenced hunting. Other than that, he found no evidence of any other defects. The motorcycle made an immediate start for him.

[25] He noted the complaints made by Mr Tyack not observed during inspection, and the issue that was detected, the rough/low idle and hunting, were all generally related to the fuel system, settings and delivery of fuel. Mr Dodge added that research had identified that this motorcycle must go through a learning phase from new. That required the owner to ride his motorcycle in varying conditions for the "electronics/computer" to adapt. As to how long it would take for the motorcycle to learn to adapt, he said that was an unknown.

Research has identified that this motorcycle must go through a learning phase from new. This requires the owner to ride his motorcycle in varying conditions for the electronics/computer to adapt. Should any faults or issues be present after this process the bike would be required to be returned to the dealership for further investigation and diagnosis. As to how long it would take for the motorcycle to learn/adapt is unknown.

[27] Mr Dodge did not record the kilometres the motorcycle had covered when he examined it on 1 July 2025, but Mr Tyack said he thought it was about 4,000 kms, perhaps more. That was well after the videos taken by Mr Tyack were taken and said to show problems.

[28] Mr Tyack was asked to comment on the report that at the 1,000 km service there were no problems detected despite the motorcycle being ridden some 80 kms or so by workshop staff. He did not answer that clearly but complained that they (the workshop) had done the computer update before riding the motorcycle probably to and from work and then around town a lot of times. He said they should have ridden the motorcycle before the update, rather suggesting that the update had rectified the problems he had been complaining about and that the problems he was complaining about no longer existed.

[29] He said the motorcycle had stalled a handful of times since the 1,000 km service but probably the biggest problem since the service was starting the machine.[2] According to Mr Tyack fuel use since the service had increased. He now achieves approximately 50 km less per tank full than he did before the service.

[30] Mr Benstead for Motosport pointed out that the Assessor had not found any significant issue with the motorcycle save for the idle and that was computer-controlled and it might simply need a reset. Or he said the poor idle could be caused by contaminated fuel.

[31] The parties discussed the motorcycle being then due for a 5,000 km service at hearing. They agreed that that should be done and then the motorcycle tested a final time by an independent mechanical shop, with Motosport to pay the costs associated with the independent inspection and report. The report would be made available to the Tribunal if prepared before a final decision was handed down, and in those circumstances the parties would be entitled to make any further submissions in respect of the report.

[32] That was done. A copy of a report from the independent workshop, Motorcycles 'R' Us, has been filed in the Tribunal.

[33] The report is dated 8 February 2026. In the report the motorcycle is noted to have travelled 5,009 km as at date of the inspection. The workshop was generally asked to report any abnormalities found. The report noted:

Fuel

Premium unleaded fuel 95.

Notes

Bike presented to workshop with low fuel. Added 5 ltrs fresh fuel. Tyre pressures low, 20 PSI front, 30 PSI rear. Adjusted pressures to 36 PSI front, 36 PSI rear. Connected bike to Ducati Diagnostic System - no stored or occurring faults in system.

Notes

No abnormal live data noted. Printed global scan. Test rode bike multiple times - bike engine did not stall. No irregular idle patterns. No abnormal running issues.

Notes

Did observe light smoke from exhaust on occasional start up.

[34] The Assessor answered certain generic questions posed by the Tribunal in his report.

[35] To the question 'What further investigations and/or repairs are needed to rectify any current existing defects', the Assessor wrote that Mr Tyack should continue to ride the motorcycle because the motorcycle must go through a learning phase. The Assessor did not recommend any particular rectification work be done other than if faults or issues continued the motorcycle should be returned to the dealer for further investigation and diagnosis.

[36] The Assessor did not suggest the motorcycle was unsafe to ride.

[37] Motosport's workshop report at 1,000 km addressed the problem advised to them by Mr Tyack, namely engine stalling. It is not recorded that there was any complaint made to them at the time of rough or low idle or the engine hunting.

[38] The vehicle was returned to Motosport at 5,000 kms and serviced then the report on the motorcycle was obtained from an independent motorcycle workshop.

[39] There is no copy of the 5,000 km service report performed by the respondent's workshop available and therefore no mention of what the Ducati diagnostic system found with respect to fuel injection. However the independent workshop report (at 5,009 km) found no defects or problems using the same diagnostic system, save mention made of light smoke observed on occasional start up.

[40] The independent report mirrored in large part the report from Motosport on the condition of the motorcycle following the 1,000 km service, save for the necessity of an update to the fuel injection system identified at the 1,000 km service. The independent workshop was given broadbrush scope to investigate and identify any abnormalities with the motorcycle but found none.

[41] At hearing Mr Tyack painted a far more serious problem persisting with the motorcycle standing in stark contrast to the reports:

MR TYACK: Um - it stalled - yes, it stalled just the other day on the 11th of this month, as well as having - like - a horrible acceleration issue like it was a bucking bronco. And then it flamed out while I was also riding, and then sort of somehow managed to gain running again. I don't know how it did that. And then straight after that, an urgent check light came on. So it's been parked up since then.[3]

[42] It was only some short time after that incident that the Ducati computerised diagnostic fault detection equipment was used by the independent workshop but that workshop still failed to detect any defect or fault with the machine.

[43] I make the following findings on the evidence available, giving particular weight to the findings of the Assessor and the independent workshop report.

[44] I find the problems with the motorcycle from date of purchase were what may be described as running in issues and such are not uncommon to motorcycles with advanced computerised electrical and fuel delivery systems. The running in problems constituted minor defects as at date of delivery of the motorcycle.

[45] I find the 1,000 km service remedied the running in problems complained about.

[46] After the 1,000 km service, new minor problems arose, described by Mr Tyack in his application for motor vehicle dispute as hunting for idle, poor running and excessive use of fuel.

[47] I determine the new issues were also running in problems constituting minor defects which did not affect the safety of the machine and those defects were resolved at the 5,000 km service.

[48] I find no defects remained with the machine after that, major or minor.

[49] Mr Tyack as a consumer was entitled to complain under the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL')[4] if the respondent as supplier refused or failed to remedy the identified minor defects within a reasonable time after notification.[5] There was no refusal by the respondent to address the initial defects complained about which were resolved at the 1,000 km service.

[50] After the service at 1,000 km the motorcycle was returned to Mr Tyack on 3 April 2024, apparently by Ducati Australia. On 15 April 2024 Mr Tyack wrote to Ducati Australia to say the machine was still having problems. Mr Tyack was advised by Ducati Australia on 16 April 2024 to send the motorcycle to the nearest dealership in Cairns but Mr Tyack declined to do that.

[51] Mr Tyack then complained to the Office of Fair Trading about the motorcycle and the Office of Fair Trading contacted the respondent who wrote back on 28 May 2024 advising that the motorcycle was in good condition with no faults presenting and that since the 1,000 km service the communication received from the Office of Fair Trading was the first advice received that the motorcycle was still, according to Mr Tyack, not performing properly.

[52] Mr Tyack commenced the Tribunal proceedings on 21 June 2024 seeking return of his purchase price or a new motorcycle.

[53] There was no request of the respondent to rectify the issues which I have found were new issues after the 1,000 km service. There was therefore no refusal or failure on the part of the respondent to remedy the defects which arose after the 1,000 km service, all of which were minor. The only notice given to the respondent that there were ongoing defects with the motorcycle after the 1,000 km service was given some four weeks or so before proceedings were commenced.

[54] Mr Tyack seeks recovery of expenses associated with what he describes as delay in remedying the problems with the motorcycle, including the costs of registration and insurance. I have found there has been no delay remedying defects on the part of Motosport. The original defects were running in issues and rectified at the 1,000 km service. The subsequent minor defects occurred after that and rather than turn to Motosport as supplier to rectify the issues Mr Tyack turned to the within Tribunal proceedings.

[55] By s 259(4) ACL a consumer is also entitled to claim damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with a guarantee under the ACL if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such failure.

[56] There has been no loss and damage suffered by Mr Tyack recoverable against the respondent. I have determined on the evidence before me that any defect with the motorcycle, even from outset, was minor and a running in issue. It was Mr Tyack's decision not to ride the motorcycle. It could have been ridden.

[57] The application for motor vehicle dispute is dismissed.

[1] Application - Motor Vehicle Dispute page 2 of 3 attachment.

[4] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2.