Appeal from Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal — unfair or prejudicial proceedings — faulty motor — Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, s 6 — Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, Sch 1 cl 16(2). The appellant brought an appeal to a determination from the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal relating to recovery of costs incurred in replacing an engine in a vehicle purchased from the respondent. A secondhand engine was provided by the respondent. The appellant sought to recover labour costs she incurred of replacing the engine of $873.72 as well as the additional cost of a mechanic, at $391. In the Tribunal, the Adjudicator heard from an assessor, who found the engine fault was caused by the use of the wrong, lower quality fuel, and determined that the fault was with Ms Jones, not the respondent. In appealing the determination of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, Schedule 1 cl 16(2) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act provides that if the claim does not exceed $12,500 the appeal may be brought on the ground that the proceedings were conducted by the Disputes Tribunal in a manner that was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings. In her appeal, Ms Jones pointed to a Nissan owner's manual that stated that the inferior fuel could be used in a Nissan vehicle, with only a diminished performance. However, the Judge noted that it's unclear the manual used even related to the particular make and model of the vehicle sold. Also, the Tribunal found that it was the appellant's own actions that caused the engine to fault and that with the evidence before the Tribunal, it was difficult to see how the Adjudicator could arrive at a different conclusion. For this reason, the Judge found that the proceedings were not unfair or prejudicial and the Tribunal's decision stood. Judgment Date: 8 February 2018.