Appeal dismissed: NCAT had no power to hear a car claim by an owner who inherited the vehicle

What happened

The car was bought new on 5 September 2018 from LAPO Pty Ltd trading as Victory MG at Tweed Heads South for $25,490. The buyer was the applicant's father. He died unexpectedly on 19 September 2018, about two weeks after the purchase. The car passed to his daughter from his estate, and she transferred it into her name in New South Wales on 7 February 2020. She then drove it as her own.

SAIC Motor Australia Pty Ltd was the importer of the car and, under the Australian Consumer Law, is treated as its manufacturer. Kumar Motors (Bankstown) Pty Ltd trading as Bankstown MG carried out service work on the car.

In February 2025 the car stalled while being driven. Between February 2025 and July 2025 it stalled on numerous occasions while in use, intermittently. The dealer tried to find and fix the cause a number of times but could not make the fault happen again while the car was in its possession. A solicitor's letter of demand was sent to the dealer and to SAIC on 8 September 2025.

The owner applied to NCAT's Consumer and Commercial Division. On 20 May 2026 a General Member dismissed the claim, finding that because the car had not been supplied to her, she was not a "consumer" under the Fair Trading Act and the consumer remedies she relied on were not available to her. She appealed that dismissal, but only in relation to SAIC.

What each side wanted

The owner said the stalling was a "major failure" under section 259(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Consumer Law, that she had rejected the car, and she asked for a refund of the price her father paid plus compensation. Her filed applications also sought compensation for the reduction in the car's value under sections 259(3) and 260, damages for reasonably foreseeable consequential loss under section 259(4), an order letting her sell or scrap the car without the respondent claiming any interest in it, and her NCAT filing fees. On appeal she argued that the first Tribunal member had failed to deal with, or to give proper reasons about, her argument that she was an "affected person" under the Australian Consumer Law and so could claim against SAIC as the manufacturer, and alternatively that the decision misread the Fair Trading Act and the Australian Consumer Law. She also sought leave to appeal on the basis that the decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of the evidence. SAIC and Bankstown MG filed no written submissions for the appeal; the dealer filed a reply and submissions and made oral submissions.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel (Senior Members H Woods and J McAteer) dismissed the appeal. Orders were made on 21 October 2026. No money was ordered to be paid by anyone.

The Panel reached that result on the ground that NCAT had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim at all, so there was no point going on to the rest of the appeal.

The Panel did, however, disagree with part of the first decision. It said the reasons below should not be read as deciding that the owner has no rights at all under the Australian Consumer Law against the manufacturer. Whether she holds such rights, and whether NCAT can decide or enforce them, are two separate questions.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

NCAT is a creature of statute: it can only do what legislation gives it power to do. For consumer disputes, that power comes from Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW). Section 79I says any "consumer" may apply for determination of a "consumer claim", and section 79J gives the Tribunal power to hear such a claim. Part 6A does not itself create a right to sue; it gives the Tribunal a forum for rights that exist under other law, such as the Australian Consumer Law.

The key definitions sit in section 79D. A "consumer" is a person to whom a supplier has supplied, or agreed to supply, goods or services. A "supplier" is a person who supplies goods or services in the course of carrying on (or purporting to carry on) a business. Here the car moved from the dealer to the father, and then from the father's estate to his daughter. That second step – a gift or inheritance from a private individual – was not a supply by someone carrying on a business. So she was not a "consumer" under the Fair Trading Act, and her claim was not a "consumer claim" that NCAT could hear. The Panel followed the same approach as earlier NCAT decisions on gifted and inherited vehicles, which drew a distinction between goods bought as a gift and handed straight to the intended recipient, and goods bought and used by one person and only later passed on.

The Panel accepted that the owner may well be an "affected person" under section 2 of the Australian Consumer Law – that definition covers a person who acquires goods from the consumer, or who derives title through or under the consumer. Sections 271 to 273 let an affected person sue the manufacturer (which includes an importer) for damages where the guarantee of acceptable quality in section 54 was not met, with a three-year limit running from when the affected person first became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the failure. But the Panel held that being an "affected person" under the Australian Consumer Law does not make someone a "consumer" under the Fair Trading Act. The two definitions do different jobs, and it is the Fair Trading Act one that decides whether NCAT can hear the case.

Because there was no jurisdiction, the Panel held that the first member's failure to engage with the "affected person" argument could not amount to an error of law or a substantial miscarriage of justice: the Tribunal had to settle jurisdiction first, and the answer was that it had none. The Tribunal never reached the question of whether the stalling was in fact a major failure.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position – driving a car that was bought by a parent, partner or friend and later passed to you – this decision shows that the forum question and the rights question are separate. Rights under the Australian Consumer Law can follow goods to a later owner, because the law has a category of "affected person" who takes the goods from the original buyer. But NCAT's own power to hear a consumer dispute is set by Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act, and that turns on whether a business supplied the goods to the person bringing the claim.

The practical effect in this case was that the whole claim fell at the first hurdle. The faults, the repair attempts and the question of whether stalling is a major failure were never examined, because the Tribunal could not get to them. The decision also records the three-year window in section 273 for an affected person's action against a manufacturer, running from when that person first became aware, or should have become aware, that the acceptable quality guarantee was not met.

Where someone is in a dispute like this, the step most people take first is a written demand to the dealer and to the importer or manufacturer, setting out the fault, the repair history and what is being asked for, before any application to a tribunal or court. Which forum can then hear the matter depends on who supplied what to whom, and that is worth settling before an application is filed.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and motor vehicle dealers.

Source: Richards v SAIC Motors Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 326 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.