Claim of $1,080.32 against a mechanic dismissed for lack of evidence of poor work (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The owner of a Mazda BT-50 used a sole-trader mechanic several times between 2022 and 2024 for repairs and maintenance. The claim arose from two separate episodes.

In August 2022 the vehicle broke down at Enoggera. The mechanic came out but could not restart it, and it was towed to the owner's home. The owner said the mechanic told him at the roadside that a sprocket had come off the fuel pump because the mechanic had not used thread-locking compound when he fitted it earlier. The mechanic denied saying this. He said the cause was a design flaw in the part, which the manufacturer later modified. The owner sent a reimbursement demand on 2 January 2023. About three months later he engaged the mechanic again for further paid work. The tribunal found no record of the owner pressing that debt again until he filed his claim about 18 months later.

In March 2024 the owner reported a loss of coolant. The mechanic said that when asked whether it could be the radiator, he replied it was 'probably' the radiator but that he could not see and did not know. The owner then bought a new radiator, coolant and hose clamps himself, and asked the mechanic to fit the radiator and hoses. The mechanic fitted the radiator, a lower radiator hose and a bypass hose. He charged three hours of labour at $90 an hour, a total of $270.

The claim was first filed in the Caboolture Magistrates Court on 28 June 2024 and later moved to the tribunal's motor vehicle list. Neither party gave oral evidence at the hearing. Both relied on their written material and documents.

What each side wanted

The owner claimed $1,080.32 in total: $253.00 for towing, $118.13 for a replacement sprocket, $275.00 for a radiator, $106.72 for two hoses (his own invoice recorded $97.02 for the same item), $47.47 for coolant and hose clamps, $270.00 for the mechanic's March 2024 labour charge, which he said was excessive because the work should have taken under 30 minutes, and $10.00 for a business-name search. The mechanic denied liability for all of it. He said the sprocket failed because of a design flaw in the part, not his workmanship. He said he never diagnosed the radiator or told the owner to buy one, and that fitting both hoses is standard trade practice for this kind of repair. He also said his labour charge reflected the work actually done. In emails he said he had 'never received any services' from the owner's business and owed it nothing.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal dismissed the application. It found that the owner had not proved any part of the $1,080.32 claimed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, meaning each pays their own expenses of the case.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal assessed the claim under the consumer guarantees in the Australian Consumer Law. Section 60 guarantees that services are provided with due care and skill. Section 61 guarantees that services will be fit for a purpose the consumer made known, but under s 61(3) this applies only where the consumer relied on the supplier's skill or judgment and it was reasonable to do so. If a guarantee is breached, the consumer can recover consequential loss under s 267. Consequential loss means costs that flow from the failure. The owner had to prove each part of his claim on the balance of probabilities, which means showing it was more likely than not. Following the High Court case Briginshaw v Briginshaw, the tribunal said a serious allegation calls for more careful proof. One example is a claim that a tradesperson admitted faulty work.

On the sprocket, the only evidence of the alleged roadside admission was the owner's own account, written after the event. The mechanic flatly denied making it. The tribunal said this disputed, unrecorded conversation was not enough. It also gave weight to the fact that the owner kept using the mechanic for paid work soon after his demand, and did not raise the debt again for about 18 months. As a result, the tribunal was not satisfied that the failure was caused by a lack of care rather than a fault in the part. Because the towing and sprocket costs depended on that finding, they could not be recovered either.

On the radiator, the tribunal accepted that the mechanic gave only a qualified opinion ('probably', but he could not see), not a firm diagnosis. That was not a breach of the duty of due care and skill. The tribunal also found it was not reasonable reliance under s 61(3) to spend $275 on a radiator based on such a hedged remark. The mechanic's evidence that fitting both hoses is normal trade practice was not contradicted. The owner's own documents gave two different figures for the hoses, with no explanation. Because no breach was proved, the coolant and clamps were simply costs of a repair the owner chose to have done.

On the labour charge, the owner did not dispute that the invoiced work was done. He offered no independent quote, trade guide or expert opinion to show three hours was unreasonable. The tribunal would not prefer his unsupported lay opinion on a technical question over the mechanic's itemised invoice. The $10 search fee was unnecessary because the mechanic's invoice already showed his business name, ABN and address. The tribunal read the mechanic's 'never received any services' emails as a rejection of the owner's confusing invoice, not as a denial that the two had ever dealt with each other. That invoice had been issued in three different amounts with no description. Overall, the owner's documents proved what he had spent, but not that the mechanic caused those costs through any failure.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows that, in a consumer guarantee claim about repair work, receipts on their own prove only what you spent. If you are in a similar position, the tribunal will usually look for evidence that the work or advice actually fell short and that your costs flowed from that failure. Examples of that evidence are a written report or quote from another mechanic, an expert opinion, a witness, or a written admission. A disputed, unrecorded conversation may carry little weight where the other side denies it.

The decision also shows how the tribunal treats a casual or hedged opinion such as 'probably the radiator'. Relying on that kind of remark to buy parts may not count as reasonable reliance on the tradesperson's skill. Your own conduct can also be weighed. In this case that included continuing to use the same business and not pursuing a claim for a long period. Clear, consistent paperwork matters too. Invoices that change amount or do not explain what they are for can count against the person relying on them.

In disputes like this, the first step most people take is to set out the problem and the amount sought in a clear written demand, with supporting documents attached. If that does not resolve it, they then consider an application to the tribunal.

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

Source: David John Arnold v Ross Thomas Cooper [2026] QCAT 450 (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.