Mitsubishi defends Triton fuel consumption as new class action looms

Mitsubishi has defended the accuracy of its official fuel consumption figures after a new class action announced yesterday alleging the brand published “false and misleading representations about the fuel efficiency” of its MY16-18 Mitsubishi Triton.

The action comes in the wake of an ongoing court battle between Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) and a disgruntled customer dating back to 2019.

Filed by Sydney-based law firm Bannister Law, the action claims the affected vehicles “were defective and did not comply with the statutory guarantees of acceptable quality or supply by description under the Australian Consumer Law” and weren’t “tested properly under the relevant Australian Design Rule”.

In a statement issued yesterday, MMAL said it believes the case is “without foundation” but that it would “respond accordingly”.

“Importantly, Mitsubishi Motors has full confidence in the accuracy of its fuel consumption testing, which is conducted in an accredited laboratory,” the statement read.

“There are very specific government regulations that mandate how this testing is undertaken and how the result is displayed on the fuel consumption label of all new vehicles, with which Mitsubishi fully complies.

“As this is a legal matter, it is not appropriate to comment any further at this stage.”

The preceding court battle can be traced back to 2019 when the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) ruled in favour of a disgruntled MY18 Triton owner, Zelko Begovic, who claimed his then-new vehicle wasn’t delivering anywhere near the official fuel consumption advertised by MMAL.

Under the ruling, the brand was ordered to refund Begovic the full $39,500 purchase price of his Mitsubishi Triton, but appealed the decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

In May of this year, the Supreme Court overturned VCAT’s rulings that Begovic’s vehicle was not of “acceptable quality” and didn’t match its description, thereby breaching section 56 of the Australian Consumer Law.

It did, however, find that the fuel consumption label fixed to the vehicle was still “misleading or deceptive” – a decision MMAL is planning to appeal.

With the appeal not expected to be heard until next year, Bannister Law is seeking compensation on behalf of other MY16-18 Mitsubishi Triton – acquired between May 1, 2015, and November 25, 2021 – owners as they “suffered loss and damage” due to Mitsubishi’s alleged “false and misleading conduct”.

“The consumption labels affixed to each affected vehicle and brochures published by Mitsubishi made several false and misleading representations about the fuel efficiency of the affected vehicles … the fuel efficiency of these vehicles diverged significantly from what was represented on the labels and in the brochures,” Bannister Law’s action announcement read.

If MMAL loses its Supreme Court appeal and or the class action, it could have dire consequences for the industry and leave other car-makers open to potential legal action given all manufacturer fuel economy claims are derived from standardised laboratory testing, as required by law.

Carsales has contacted the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) for comment and insight as to the industry implications these cases could have.