Legal Insights

In Matthew Patruno v Ford Motor Company [2026] NSWCATAP 6, a defective vehicle claim wrongly dismissed at first instance was successfully overturned on appeal. Arida Lawyers prepared the appeal materials and submissions that identified material errors of law and substantial injustice, providing the foundation for Mr Patruno’s successful outcome.

The case of Michael Smith v Central Coast Automotive Pty Limited and SAIC Motor Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD reinforces that the Australian Consumer Law protects consumers that purchase defective and lemon vehicles. After repeated failed repairs, the Tribunal ordered a full refund. Arida Lawyers assisted Mr Smith with the letter of demand, rejection and guidance throughout the NCAT process.

Kumar v Sydney Western Realty (No. 2) [2021] NSWDC 446 is a significant case involving misleading representations about an investment property and solicitor negligence. The decision highlights how consumers can pursue compensation when agents and lawyers fail in their obligations, particularly under the Australian Consumer Law and professional duty of care.

This article explores Marks v Gateway Automotive [2025] NSWCATCD 63, which clarifies consumer rights under the ACL when rejecting a defective motor vehicle. The case involved a Mitsubishi Outlander with multiple unresolved defects despite repeated repair attempts. NCAT held that the faults, taken together, amounted to a major failure and ordered a refund. The article explains the objective “reasonable consumer” test, the rejection period, and the difference between major and minor failures.

In Irons-McLean v Stellantis, NCAT ruled in favour of a consumer who purchased a defective Jeep Wrangler, ordering a full refund after repeated dangerous faults and unsuccessful repairs. With Arida Lawyers preparing the rejection notice, Points of Claim, and evidence, the case became a decisive lemon vehicle victory. Read how this result was achieved and what it means for protecting your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.

Are you buying or selling a property, business, vehicle, or vessel? Misleading or deceptive conduct can lead to serious legal consequences under Australian Consumer Law, but only if it occurs “in trade or commerce.” This article breaks down what that means, how courts interpret it, and when a private transaction might still attract legal liability. With real case examples and practical guidance, you’ll learn how to avoid common pitfalls and protect your rights. Whether you're a buyer or a seller, this is essential reading.

In Thillagaratnam v Doan [2022] WASC, the Supreme Court held that the sellers breached the contract of sale and that their failure to disclose a neighbour’s persistent, disruptive and anti-social behaviour constituted reckless fraudulent misrepresentation. The buyer was entitled to rescind the contract and receive compensation. This decision underscores the importance of disclosing material facts that may affect a property's use or enjoyment, and serves as a critical reminder of the disclosure obligations imposed on sellers and agents in New South Wales.

In M & E Brisby Pty Ltd v D Poole Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] NSWDC 44, the Court dismissed breach of contract and misleading conduct claims following the sale of an online business. The plaintiff failed to correctly plead the Australian Consumer Law (NSW), rendering the claim against the individual second defendant invalid. His Honour Weber SC DCJ also found no breach of contract. The case highlights the importance of due diligence, properly drafted contracts, and correct legal pleadings in disputes involving business sales and consumer law.

In D’Cruz v Coutinho, the Supreme Court of NSW awarded $854,010 to elderly investors misled into fictitious property schemes. The defendants’ conduct breached sections 4 and 18 of the Australian Consumer Law by making false claims about land ownership and settlement. The Court held the representations were misleading, deceptive, and lacked reasonable grounds.

In Lewington v Manning Valley Motor Holdings Pty Ltd, NCAT awarded $8,130 to the applicant after a vehicle failed to match its advertised description. The Tribunal made a finding that the breach of the statutory consumer guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law amounted to a major failure, entitling the applicant to reject the vehicle and claim damages.

In Hawkins v Trivett Automotive Retail Pty Ltd, QCAT ordered a full refund after a Jeep Compass Trailhawk was deemed not of acceptable quality and unfit for purpose. Despite repeated repairs, the vehicle’s ongoing defects led to a finding of major failure under Australian Consumer Law, reinforcing consumer rights to defect-free products.

The High Court in Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Begovic [2023] HCA 43 ruled that adhering to mandatory fuel consumption labeling requirements does not constitute misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, providing clarity on the intersection of statutory compliance and consumer protection.

In a pivotal case for consumer rights, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled against Kimberley Discovery Cruises in Ferme & Ors v Kimberley Discovery Cruises Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 2384. The court found that the ‘no refund’ clause in their holiday cruise contract was unfair under the Australian Consumer Law.

Unfair contract terms create an imbalance of rights and obligations, often disadvantaging one party. These terms are generally unenforceable in Australia. On 22 March 2024, the Federal Court ruled that the duty to notify Auto & General Insurance about ‘anything’ is not unfair under the ASIC Act, marking a significant decision in insurance contracts.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court in Dwyer v Volkswagen considered the standard of acceptable quality required for passenger vehicles under the Australian Consumer Law. This case confirms that a high standard of acceptable quality is expected for all vehicles, regardless of their price.

Learn about your consumer guarantees and rights for defective products and services under the Australian Consumer Law . Understand what constitutes a defective product or service, the remedies available, and the steps to take if you encounter issues.

Learn about major failures for motor vehicles under the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). Understand your rights, remedies, and the steps to take if you experience significant defects or safety issues with your vehicle. Contact Arida Lawyers for assistance.

Explore the Griffiths v LMM Holdings case, focusing on contractual commitments and the Australian Consumer Law concerning misleading and deceptive conduct. 

The case of Dwyer v Volkswagen offers critical insights into consumer law, emphasising "acceptable quality," manufacturer defences, damage assessments, third-party implications, and the evolving dynamics of consumer rights and responsibilities in Australia.

Explore the recent amendments to the Australian Consumer Law and understand how they impact business contracts. Safeguard your business with insights on avoiding penalties tied to unfair contract terms.

This decision underscores the enforcement of consumer rights in Australia, with Arida Lawyers assisting the client in addressing misleading advertising and a defective vehicle that failed to meet promised standards, quality, and description. It highlights the importance of statutory guarantees and demonstrates how consumers can seek effective remedies through the tribunal process.

In the realm of contract law, the delineation between enforceable terms and penalty clauses is a pivotal one. The recent case of Bellas v Powers [2023] NSWSC 1198 provides a nuanced exploration of this distinction, shedding light on the intricacies surrounding penalty clauses within both loan agreements and broader contractual frameworks. This case underscores the significant impact that a well-drafted agreement can have on safeguarding the interests of the parties involved.