Dispute over Audi with electrical problems run into dead end

An Audi dealership and one of its customers have both walked away empty-handed after a court ruled that each must pay its own legal costs in a dispute over a luxury car with electrical problems.

In a judgment, Durban high court judge ME Nkosi dismissed both McCarthy Bidvest Audi Centre Wonderboom’s bid to recover its legal costs and Maheshwari Naidoo’s counter-application seeking costs against the dealership. Instead the judge ordered that each party pay its own legal costs.

The dispute stemmed from Naidoo’s purchase of a brand-new Audi A3. She took delivery of the vehicle on May 1 2024 and drove it for six months without any problems. However, after a third-party technician attempted to install a tracking device, the car developed an electrical fault and was towed to an Audi dealership in Durban.

The dealership said diagnostic tests showed signs of water damage. It claimed rust on bolts near the gearbox suggested the vehicle had at some stage been partially submerged in water. Naidoo rejected that explanation and demanded a full refund under the Consumer Protection Act, insisting the car was defective.

She later launched court proceedings seeking a refund of the purchase price. But shortly before the matter was due to be heard, Naidoo withdrew her application after obtaining an independent expert’s report, read the judgment.

Although the general rule is that a party that withdraws a case should pay the other side’s legal costs, the judge found there were good reasons to depart from that principle

She did not tender legal costs, prompting the dealership to ask the court to order her to pay. Naidoo responded with a counter-application arguing that the dealership should carry the costs because its conduct had forced her to go to court.

Nkosi declined to side with either party.

Although the general rule is that a party that withdraws a case should pay the other side’s legal costs, the judge found there were good reasons to depart from that principle. He said Naidoo had acted reasonably when she approached the court because the dealership had refused to give her copies of assessment reports explaining the extent and cause of the alleged damage.

“Taking into account the inexplicable refusal of the applicant to provide the respondent with copies of the two assessment reports ... my view is that the respondent acted reasonably in launching the main application,” the judge said.

He added that the dealership’s lack of transparency left Naidoo uncertain about whether the vehicle had hidden defects when she bought it.

The court also questioned why the dealership failed to tell Naidoo that simply replacing a fuse, after allowing moisture to evaporate, restored the vehicle to normal operation.

In the end, Nkosi dismissed both the dealership’s application for costs and Naidoo’s counter-application, ordering that each side pay its own costs

“If all it took to restore the vehicle ... was to allow enough time for the water to evaporate and thereafter replace the 18-amp fuse, the question is why the respondent was not advised about such option,” the judge said.

He found that failure justified not ordering Naidoo to pay the dealership’s legal costs. However, Naidoo also failed in her attempt to make the dealership pay her legal bill.

The court found she had rejected several proposals to appoint an independent expert before eventually doing so just days before the scheduled hearing.

Nkosi said there was no proper explanation for why she delayed appointing her own expert, despite being legally represented throughout the case.

The court ruled that several strongly worded accusations contained in Naidoo’s court papers — including claims that the dealership had “lied”, “manipulated” facts and acted dishonestly — were scandalous and should be struck from the record because they did not help her case.

In the end, Nkosi dismissed both the dealership’s application for costs and Naidoo’s counter-application, ordering that each side pay its own costs.

Sowetan