On 16 May 2025, QCAT ordered a motor dealership to refund the entirety of the purchase price of a new vehicle which had been bought in June 2022 and “rejected” by the buyer in about January 2024 some 18 months afterward, because – having regard to the various defects in the vehicle – a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and effect of the failure would not have acquired the vehicle at the time of the supply.  This finding had the result that the failure was a “major failure” under the Australian Consumer Law, which allows the rejection of the item if the rejection is within the “rejection period” under section 262 of the Australian Consumer Law.

The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of supply within which it would be reasonable to expect the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee to become apparent having regard to the type of goods, the use to which they are likely to be put, the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used, and the amount of use that it is reasonable for them to be put before the failure becomes apparent.  The Tribunal had regard to a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which considered that the warranty period was relevant when considering whether the rejection period had expired.  In that matter, the Tribunal did not consider itself bound by the warranty period given under the manufacturers express warranty, but it is relevant evidence of “the expected period of largely problem free use of the goods”.

In the case of this particular vehicle, the Tribunal considered that given:

  • The applicant had sought a new replacement vehicle in February 2024;
  • Upon being told that the vehicle needed the wiring harness replaced in June 2024, the Applicant informed the Respondent that she did not want the vehicle returned to her after it was repaired and wanted a full refund;
  • The vehicle came with a 7 year unlimited km warranty, and had as at October 2024 done less than 20,000kms,

the Tribunal was satisfied that the rejection of the vehicle in 2024 was made well within the rejection period.

The consequence of a valid rejection is an entitlement on the part the applicant for a refund of any money paid for the goods, or the entitlement to the replacement the goods with goods of the same type and of similar value if they are readily available.

In this particular case, the respondent was unable to provide a replacement value of the same type and of a similar value, and the Applicant did not want another vehicle of the same make.  The Tribunal ordered the repayment of the purchase price, together with the payment of the filing fee, see Stevens v James Frizelles Automatic Group t/as Sunshine Kia [2025] QCAT 196

The decision demonstrates the further reach of consumer rights in relation to goods, which now can have to result that goods can be rejected after quite a lot of use if there is multiple issues over a period of time, such that a reasonable consumer would not have bought them.

For advice in respect of consumer law matters, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au