The Circuit Court has dismissed a solicitor’s appeal over defects and repairs to a second-hand Land Rover, finding that the vehicle was fit for purpose when purchased and that the repairs were carried out competently. The appellant was ordered to pay the other parties’ party-and-party costs, to be taxed if the parties cannot agree the amount.
The judgment, delivered by Judge Jennifer O’Brien on 22 April 2024, followed a hearing on 22 and 23 February. The case was an appeal from District Court orders dismissing the claims. The appellant brought claims against the car dealer that sold her the vehicle, a servicing company, the manufacturer and the importer. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal and the claims; it did not award damages or order an extended warranty.
The appellant said she bought a Range Rover Sport for €99,950 in June 2016. She reported early issues with the sunroof and heated seat, which were repaired. In November she experienced what felt like slipping gears and sought a service from the servicing company. The vehicle was returned to the garage in January 2017 for testing and was repaired by 19 January, with the appellant collecting it the following day. The court record says the parts replaced included a cylinder-eight fuel injector and a high-pressure supply line.
The appellant argued that the vehicle had not been of merchantable quality, that the diagnosis and repair had taken too long, and that the defendants had failed to provide adequate after-sales service. She sought damages for loss of use, an expert report and the service, as well as an extended warranty. The defendants denied the claims.
The court found the vehicle was of merchantable quality and free from defects at the time of purchase. It accepted that the parts later replaced were wear-and-tear parts and found no latent defect at the time of sale. It also found that the servicing company repaired the vehicle promptly and competently once it was made available, and that the defendants had not caused further damage or acted negligently.
The court noted that the appellant had received a replacement vehicle while hers was being repaired, although it was not of the same standard. She had not complained about it to the servicing company at the time. The judgment also said the warranty provided for a replacement vehicle subject to availability. The court found that the appellant had chosen to pay for the service and her own expert, and that the warranty excluded responsibility for those types of payment.