Australian Consumer Law and Common Law – Product Liability – A Win for a Manufacturer.
In February 2025, Whitehall won a contested hearing in the Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where we represented a well-known Australian performance engine specialist in a claim for a breach of the Australian Consumer Guarantees and a common law claim for negligence. Our lawyer, Daniela Anicic, attended the Hearing on February 18, 2025 and after five hours where there was heated cross-examination, and strong opening and closing submissions, was successful in having the matter dismissed on the grounds that the Applicant failed to adequately discharge his case. The defence for our client was simple. The damage sustained to the product, that was the performance engine built by our client, was as a result of the act of a third party. This provided a clear pathway to argue a defence both under the Australian Consumer Law and the common law for a claim of negligence.
Takeaway – a manufacturer will not be considered to have failed to meet its obligations under the ACL framework, namely, that a product was not of ‘acceptable quality’, if there was an act or omission by a party other than the manufacturer. Likewise, under the common law, where the Applicant is unable to discharge the onus proving that the damage sustained was caused by the Respondent, a claim for negligence cannot be maintained. This was a major win for our client, which has ultimately ensured that his reputation was maintained and a floodgate of claims from disgruntled consumers was not open. Consumers, whilst having the benefit of a no-cost jurisdiction in the Civil and Administrative Tribunals, nonetheless have to ensure that their claims are viable, and sufficient evidence is produced to show a nexus between the loss or damage sustained in the manufacturer.
