The Supreme Court in Kingston has ruled in favour of ATL Automotive in a lawsuit brought by a customer who alleged that the company failed to replace a defective part in his Volkswagen Polo motor vehicle.

In the ruling handed down in February, Justice Tara Carr found that while the claimant established that there was an agreement between the parties for the repair of his vehicle, he failed to show that there was a breach of the contract.

Recardo Lugg filed the claim on March 13, 2019, alleging breach of contract for failure to replace a defective mechatronic with a new one.

The court heard that he purchased the car from ATL sometime in 2012, and the warranty for the vehicle expired on November 18, 2014.

On January 15, 2016, after his VW Polo developed a transmission problem, Lugg brought the vehicle to the defendant’s service department and the mechatronic in the car was found to be defective.

He claimed that repairs were carried out on the vehicle which was returned to him on or about January 18, 2016. However, in April of 2018 a similar problem arose with his vehicle, and he returned to the service department for the mechatronic to be replaced.

Lugg contended that the defendant had failed to replace the mechatronic with a new one in January 2016, resulting in a reoccurrence of the issue.

However, ATL Automotive denied the allegation, with witness Davin Mullings, a workshop controller at the company, testifying that the mechatronic was removed and replaced with a new one in January 2016, at a minimum charge to the claimant, who was required to pay the cost of labour.

Mullings also indicated in cross-examination that the mechatronic can go bad from time to time. However, according to court documents, he could not give a definitive time as to how long it should last. He said that this was dependent on other factors, such as whether the part was being maintained at the appropriate standard. He also told the court that it was not possible to repair a mechatronic.

Meanwhile, in cross-examination, Lugg admitted that after the vehicle was returned by the defendant in 2016 the car worked well and there were no defects until 2018.

“Am I to accept that for two years following the claimant’s visit to the defendant’s service department the vehicle, that had transmission problems, worked well with the old mechatronic?” Justice Carr asked, “This is in the context of the evidence from Mr Mullings that the mechatronic cannot be repaired. If it was not repaired or changed what would account for the fact that for two years the claimant did not experience any problems with his vehicle?”

She said while the evidence supports the finding that there was a contract between the parties for the repair of the motor vehicle in 2016, there is no evidence that the mechatronic was not replaced.

“There is no independent evidence, expert or otherwise to suggest that the mechatronic was not replaced. The claimant’s say so is not satisfactory given the evidence as previously outlined. I am hard pressed to find in these circumstances that the mechatronic was not replaced,” the judge said.

“I find therefore that the claimant has failed to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities that there was a failure or refusal on the part of the defendant to replace the mechatronic,” she continued. “There being no breach of contract there is no basis for a claim in damages.”

ATL Automotive was represented by attorneys Khara East and Conrad George.