Business Law

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 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

As of 26 August 2024, national system employees of non-small business employers (mainly employers of 15 or more employees, including in associated companies) have a “right to disconnect”.  This right applies to employees of small business employers (14 or less employees) as of 26 August 2025.  The Fair Work Commission published a draft of the right insofar as it would apply to the Business Equipment Award 2020 in July 2024.  That draft notes that section 333M of the Fair Work Act provides that unless it is unreasonable to do so, an employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact from their employer or third parties (relating to their employment) outside of their working hours, and that the section goes on to set out matters to be taken into account in deciding whether the employee’s refusal is reasonable. The proposed clause provides that the employer must not directly or indirectly prevent an employee from exercising their right to disconnect, but this does not prevent an employer from requiring the employee to monitor, or read or respond to contact outside of working hours where: The proposed clause goes on to suggest that contact is permissible where there is an emergency roster change or a recall to work, under that award.  As a result, there is some question as to whether it is intended that the employer is prevented from contacting the employee except in certain circumstances, or whether the employer can contact as much as it wants, the right is for the employee to ignore those attempts.  The fact that contact is “permissible” in some circumstances suggests that contact is not permissible in others. Of course, this was a draft of an award provision, it is unclear what form the right to disconnect will take in respect of each award. For advice in relating to commercial and business law, including employment, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au