Mitsubishi in the clear over fuel consumption claims

The High Court of Australia has ruled that Mitsubishi did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct by selling a new Triton ute with fuel consumption claims that the buyer was unable to replicate in real-world driving.

The four-year legal battle had serious implications for the entire car industry, potentially exposing every brand to litigation should owners be unable to achieve the claim on their car’s mandatory fuel consumption label, which is based on a laboratory-based test required to meet the Australian Design Rule 81/02.

It also goes to the heart of the debate over car-makers’ official fuel consumption and emissions claims, with calls for changes to the standards using real-world data.

The action against Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) stems from a disgruntled Victorian owner, Zelko Begovic, who purchased a new MY16 Mitsubishi Triton in 2017 and subsequently alleged that it consumed more fuel in the real world than the manufacturer’s claim on the ute’s economy label – and was even thirstier than his previous 2008 Triton.

MMAL was eventually ordered by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to refund Begovic the purchase price of his new Triton on the grounds it had breached sections 18 (no misleading or deceptive conduct), 54 (goods are of acceptable quality) and 56 (product corresponds with advertised description) of Australian Consumer Law in the sale of the vehicle.

The car-maker appealed that ruling in the Victorian Supreme Court and was cleared of the latter two breaches but was still found to have not complied with section 18 – a decision MMAL unsuccessfully challenged on appeal.

That saw the case move to the High Court, which this week handed down its ruling in MMAL’s favour.

“In circumstances where the appellants were bound, respectively, to apply and to maintain the fuel consumption label on the respondent’s vehicle, a label the form and content of which were dictated by Australian Design Rule 81/02, the appellants did not, by that conduct, breach s.18 of the Australian Consumer Law,” the judgement reads.

The High Court ruled that Mr Begovic’s application with VCAT be dismissed, however MMAL and the dealer from which the vehicle was purchased have been ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for special leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

Both the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and the Australian Automotive Dealer Association have welcomed the outcome of the case, declaring the verdict a win for common sense.

Join the conversation at 

our Facebook page

Or email us at 

editor@carsales.com.au