Breaching orders of Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal — ban from trading — Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2008] 2 NZLR 141 — Moto Limited v Registrar of Motor Vehicles [2019] NZDC 5079 — Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, ss 67, 68 & 69 — District Courts Rules 2014, rr 18.19 & 18.24 — Interpretation Act 1999, s 29 — Yan v Post Office Bank Limited [1994] 1 NZLR 154 (CA) — Williams v Gibbons [1994]1 NZLR 273 (CA). The appellant appealed a decision of the respondent that removed its ability to trade. The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (the Tribunal) removed the appellant's ability to trade as they had breached more than one order of the Tribunal within a 10-year period. The appellant had failed to repay a sum of money to one of its customers within the time period that the Tribunal had ordered. The appellant argued that its failure to make the payment on time was due to the customer's refusal to accept a bank cheque as payment, and also because the appellant and the customer had struggled to reach a satisfactory arrangement for returning the car that the customer had bought. Although the appellant admitted that it had failed to make payment on time, it submitted that the Court had a discretion to overturn the respondent's decision, and should do so because the delay was the fault of the customer. The Court disagreed, finding that the Tribunal had made the correct decision. The Court had no discretion to overturn the respondent's decision. The Court observed that even if it did have this discretion it would not have exercised it. Although the customer was mistaken in refusing to accept a bank cheque as payment, the appellant had still clearly failed to make the payment within the time ordered by the Tribunal. The Court dismissed the appeal. Judgment Date: 23 July 2019.