Supreme Court dismisses Mitsubishi’s appeal against fuel consumption ruling
Mitsubishi engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when it sold a 2016 Triton, finds courtThe Supreme Court of Victoria has dismissed Mitsubishi Australia’s appeal in its prolonged legal battle with a disgruntled customer around advertised fuel consumption.
The court upheld both its and a previous Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) ruling that Mitsubishi had engaged in “misleading or deceptive conduct” in 2017 when it sold a new 2016 Mitsubishi Triton to a customer who was unable to match the ute’s advertised fuel consumption.
The vehicle in question was proven to consume more fuel than both the advertised figure and the customer’s previous 2008 Triton, and the original VCAT hearing in 2019 ruled that Mitsubishi had breached sections 18 (no misleading or deceptive conduct), 54 (goods are of acceptable quality) and 56 (product corresponds with advertised description) of Australia Consumer Law (ACL) in the sale of the vehicle.
Mitsubishi was subsequently ordered to refund the customer the entirety of the vehicle’s $39,500 sale price, but the brand appealed the ruling in the Supreme Court, which then overturned two of the findings – breach of sections 54 and 56 – in May 2021, but upheld the breach of section 18.
Mitsubishi appealed the decision again but the challenge was dismissed by the court on Friday (August 5).
“We, Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited, are aware of the decision in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria to dismiss our appeal,” said the Japanese brand in a statement issued to carsales.
“Mitsubishi Motors respects the Court's decision, but is disappointed by the outcome.
“We are reviewing the decision, and taking advice on potential further options.
“In light of that, it is not appropriate for Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited to comment on this matter further.”
With Mitsubishi staying tight-lipped, it remains to be seen what happens next in what has been a relatively high-profile case within the auto industry, so much so it’s inspired a separate class action.
Filed by Sydney-based law firm Bannister Law late last year, the Federal Court action claims that relevant MY16-18 Tritons do in fact breach sections 54 and 56 of the ACL and weren’t tested properly under the relevant Australian Design Rule.
When news of the class action broke in November 2021, Mitsubishi said it believed the case “was without foundation” and that it had “full confidence in the accuracy of its fuel consumption testing”.
The next case management hearing is scheduled for August 23.
Related: Mitsubishi defends Triton fuel consumption as new class action looms
Related: Mitsubishi ordered to refund Triton owner over exceeded fuel consumption
Join the conversation at
Or email us at
Or email us at
Tags
Please see our Editorial Guidelines & Code of Ethics (including for more information about sponsored content and paid events). The information published on this website is of a general nature only and doesn’t consider your particular circumstances or needs.
