Manufacturer fails to shut out a second-hand buyer’s rust claim over a nine-seater van (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The vehicle was an LDV G10 nine-seater van. It was not in dispute that another person bought the van from a dealer trading as Keema Cars on 10 March 2022. The applicant then bought the same van from that first owner on 5 May 2023, in a private sale rather than from a dealer.

The applicant says the van went on to develop severe structural rust and corrosion on its chassis rails, sub-frame, underbody components and several body panels. She brought a claim for damages in QCAT against Ateco Automotive Pty Ltd, trading as LDV Automotive Aust., the manufacturer side of the supply chain, rather than against the dealer or the person who sold her the van.

Before the rust claim itself was heard, the manufacturer filed an Application for Miscellaneous Matters (Dismissal) on 31 March 2026, asking the Tribunal to end the proceeding. The dismissal application was decided on the papers, meaning on the written material without a face-to-face hearing, and reasons were delivered on 9 October 2026.

What each side wanted

The manufacturer argued the applicant had no standing, that is, no legal right to bring the claim, because she was a private buyer who had not bought the van from the manufacturer or from a motor dealer. Its position was that the sale to her was a one-off private transaction and not a supply "in trade or commerce", so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, meaning no power, to hear her case and should dismiss it. The applicant's underlying claim was for damages from the manufacturer over the rust and corrosion she says the van developed.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal made a single order: the Application for Miscellaneous Matters (Dismissal) filed by the respondent on 31 March 2026 is dismissed.

No money was ordered to be paid by either side in this decision, and no costs figure or deadline is recorded in the text. The effect of the order is that the applicant's damages claim over the rust and corrosion stays on foot and the Tribunal has power to hear it. The Tribunal described the manufacturer's dismissal application as misconceived.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Tribunal started with section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), which gives QCAT power to hear a damages action against a manufacturer of goods brought under section 271(1), (3) and (5) of the Australian Consumer Law, found in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

The key point was who may bring such an action. The Tribunal explained that to sue a manufacturer under section 271 a person does not have to be a "consumer" in the Australian Consumer Law sense. It is enough to be an "affected person" in relation to the goods. Section 2 defines that term to include a consumer who acquires the goods, a person who acquires the goods from the consumer other than for the purpose of re-supply, and a person who derives title to the goods through or under the consumer.

The Tribunal applied the High Court's decision in Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2024] HCA 38, where Jagot J explained that if an original consumer sells a car privately to someone who is not buying it to re-sell, that private sale is not a supply in trade or commerce, so no fresh guarantee of acceptable quality arises on it, but the private buyer is still an "affected person" and so may potentially claim the manufacturer remedies. Her Honour also noted that it is usually the manufacturer, not the supplier, that controls the quality of goods, so by putting goods on the market the manufacturer has a potential legal relationship with later buyers as well as the first one.

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal found on a prima facie basis, meaning on the face of the material and without finally deciding the facts, that the first purchaser was the consumer and that the applicant either acquired the van from that consumer or derived title through or under her. It followed that the applicant was an affected person for the purposes of section 271, the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and the dismissal application failed.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the "affected person" rule in the Australian Consumer Law is applied to second-hand buyers. The fact that you bought a vehicle privately, from an ordinary owner rather than a dealer, does not by itself put you outside the Act when the claim is against the manufacturer. A private sale is generally not a supply in trade or commerce, so a fresh guarantee of acceptable quality does not arise on that sale, but a person who acquires goods from the original consumer, or who derives title through or under them, can still fall within the definition that section 271 uses.

The decision also shows the difference between a claim being heard and a claim being won. All the Tribunal decided here was that it had power to hear the case and that the manufacturer's attempt to end it early did not succeed. Whether the rust and corrosion breach any guarantee, and what if anything should be paid, were not decided in this ruling.

In disputes of this kind, the step most people take first is a written demand to the business responsible, setting out the vehicle, the purchase history, the faults and the remedy sought under the Australian Consumer Law, and only then an application to the tribunal if that demand is refused or ignored.

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

Source: Taylor v Ateco Automotive Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 470 (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.