So on the 22nd June 2021 the first hearing at the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal was held between me v Mercedes Benz and G Brothers. Now interestingly G Brothers must have been having a sleep that day as they didn’t turn up for the hearing (via phone, due to COVID).
So it was quite a short affair really, 20 minutes or so.
However, interestingly the first time Mercedes got to speak they were rather bullish, and acknowledged the web browser function has been discontinued; to that there was no conjecture. And further they admitted the web browser had been sun downed.
No questions or arguments to whether it had been stopped from working or not; quite simply we did it, we admit it.
Mercedes Benz made an offer of $500, which was declined.
So the matter will now move to a contested hearing, the date being set towards the end of September 2021.
This is where is got really strange, or weird; I was a little taken aback.
I requested some documents via summons as neither as Mercedes Benz nor G Brothers had provided what I had requested. There were six or seven items on the list and as I started to rattle through them the Member stopped me and said there is no need for the documents as Mercedes have already admitted they stopped the function from working.
The Member then directed the question to Mercedes of whether there is any dispute or contention of whether they had stopped the function from working. Mercedes started to prattle on about this and that, to which the Member stopped them, and asked them directly, “The function which has been stopped by Mercedes is not in contest?”. After a short pause Mercedes responded that they agreed it was not in contest.
Therefore the Member informed me I do not need to prove whether the function has been stopped or not as Mercedes have already admitted they stopped it.
Now the question, how does this breach Australian Consumer Law?