Particulars of the Defence and Counterclaim

The claimant did not provide an acceptable level of skill or technical knowledge when providing
the service. I took my boat in because I had a problem with the carburettors. They told me that
once the mechanic diagnoses the problem, they will message me and ask for consent.
The claimant told me my engine was misfiring and it needed a carby clean.
This was untrue,. They misdiagnosed the problem with my engine and then couldn't fix it.
I rang them daily to begin with asking when my boat will be ready. Each day, they had a different
excuse. After the 9th day, they finally told me they didn't know what the problem was, and they
didn't have time to fix it.
The claimant told me to come pick up the boat up, as is, and pay the invoice. I asked him to
please fix the motor, and he said no.
I then stated that I wasn't paying if I am forced to take my boat back without fixing the
problem. Oat in with a problem and then having to take my boat back with the same problem. He
told me that I had to pay and he wasn't doing anything more on my boat. When I arrived, my
boat was chained behind a 1000L water tank so that I could not take it. I asked the claimant to
turn the motor on, it sounded 10x worse then when I brought it in.
I tried to reason with the claimant, but he yelled at me and told me to leave the premises before
he charged me with trespassing. When I saw the invoice, I saw they didn't even finish the service.
The invoice states "partial service." The claimant has stated that they spent a total of 7.28 hours
in labour, and " it typically takes 3 hours to service a motor the same size." They had my boat
for 12 days and I had to pay another mechanic to fix my motor and tune my carburetors. He
tuned the carbys within 15 minutes. I tried to reason with the claimant again, but he wouldn't
budge. I contacted the police and consumer protection to ask for my legal rights. They informed
me that what he has done is against consumer law. He can not charge for an incomplete and
unsatisfactory service. They informed me I would be entitled to compensation and repair costs.
The claimant had a duty of care and standard to uphold, and neither were provided.

Particulars of the defence:

Claimant did not have the level of skill required and needed to diagnose a basic engine fault
and/or complete a service on my outboard motor.
The claimant misdiagnosed and could not fix the problem. I am not entitled to pay for his
mistake
Claimant failed to complete a basic motor service. I am not entitled to pay for an incomplete
service.
Claimant either didn’t do or incorrectly performed a compression test on cylinders.
He states the compression test on my cylinders were 75 psi.
If that were true and/or accurate, it would mean my engine was completely broken and the
cylinders and pistons on my motor would need rebuilding.
Why would the Service Centre send me a text stating they had diagnosed the problem as “engine
misfiring and state that cleaning the carburettors and servicing my motor will fix the problem?
Nothing the claimant has stated or claimed is true, there is not one factual statement within this
case. He has blatantly lied and accused me of saying things which couldn’t be further from the
truth, I was asking the
For example he claims that” I used my engine for parts”
“ I didn’t want to pay for repairs and parts”
“I didn’t want to wait for parts to arrive”
The claimant claims and states in one email to Westpac “that he purchased parts for my motor
but I didn’t want to wait for them for them to arrive. He then tells Westpac that “I owe him “for
the parts he purchased
He then states that my motor was” too old and he couldn’t get parts for my motor, that’s why he
couldn’t do the full service”

The claimant refused to fix the problem with my motor. Therefore,

I am entitled to pay another mechanic to fix and recover the costs from the claimant
Claimant couldn’t complete a basic motor service within 11 days.
Claimant unlawfully withheld my boat and coerced me into paying $955 for unsatisfactory and
incomplete service
The claimant refused the amount of $400 I generously offered to pay
The defendant contacted consumer protection to sort the problem, but the claimant refused.
Defendant had to pay another mechanic to diagnose and fix my motor (he tuned the carburettors
within 15 mins and diagnosed the broken oil pump
I couldn’t use my boat for 6 weeks because of the claimant
The claimant took advantage and caused extreme stress and pain.
The claimant doesn’t state the truth and needs to be held liable for the damage he has caused and
time he has wasted
I have attached all relevant evidence to show the Defendants claims have no merit as he doesn’t
tell the truth.

The legal basis of the defence:

The legal basis of the Counterclaim

According to Australian Consumer Law,
 the repairs must be done, within a reasonable time.
 If not, the consumer can request a free Replacement or refund or
 Repair elsewhere and recover the costs from the supplier.
 The consumer may also recover damages for any Loss or damage.
 Services will
*Be provided with due care, skill and technical knowledge
* Be fit for any disclosed purpose;
*Be completed (or provided) within a reasonable time; and
*Take all necessary care to avoid loss or damage
If these guarantees are not met or something goes wrong, you may be entitled to a
remedy under ACL

 Compensation for consequential loss

 Financial costs
 Lost time and productivity costs
 Compensation for Misleading Conduct

 ACT Part 4-1 — Offences relating to unfair practices Division 1 —

 False or misleading representations etc Division 5 —
Other unfair practices
section 168.
Harassment and coercion
 I am able to recover the repair costs and parts I paid the third-party mechanics to fix and repair my motor.
 Claimant couldn’t complete and refused to complete a basic motor service and tune the Carby's within 11 days.
 Could not correctly Diagnose and fix a minor engine fault within 12 days.
 Claimant unlawfully withheld my boat and coerced me into paying $955 for unsatisfactory and incomplete service
 The Claimant refused the amount of $400 I generously offered to pay.
  The Defendant contacted Consumer Protection to try and sort the problem with the Claimant to avoid wasting time in
Court. The Claimant refused to negotiate and compromise, therefor I would like to recover costs for the valuable time it
took preparing and lodging documents as well as the time I have spent in Court rather then at work.
 The claimant took advantage and caused extreme stress.
 I am able to recover damages and compensation costs due to Consumer protection laws and Practices
 The claimant doesn’t state the truth and needs to be held liable for the damage he has caused and time he has wasted
 I have and can produce all relevant evidence to support my defence and prove the Defendants claims have no merit.

The details of anyone who the party alleges is liable for the Counter claim and
the grounds upon which the party so alleges:
The claimant did not provide an acceptable level of skill or technical knowledge when providing the service.
 The claimant failed to meet any requirements of the Australian Consumer law, therefore he is liable to pay repair, loss
and damage costs as well as compensation.
 Completely misdiagnosed the problem and told me cleaning the carburettors would fix the problem.
 Claims that a carby clean will fix my engine misfiring
 I am not required to pay for the claimants' lack of knowledge and professional skill.
 Especially after he told me he didn't know what the problem was and couldn't fix it.
 The claimant told me on the 10th day he didn't have time to fix the motor and that I need to pay the invoice and pick the
boat up.
 I asked him to please fix my boat before I pick it up. I gave him ample time to fix his mistakes and complete the
services.
 The invoice states "partial service completed- customer requested to take before able to complete”
 The claimant has stated that they spent a total of 7.28 hours in labour, and " it typically takes 3 hours to service a motor
the same size." 3 hours for carby clean, 4.5 hours charged for incomplete service 12 days later...
 States “usually during a normal service” “anodes, impeller and thermostat gets changed”
what service did I receive? If it wasn’t normal and why did I pay $425?
 They had my boat for 12 days and still didn't complete the service or fix the problem that I specifically wanted done
and the reason I took it in. He refused to fix the problem and made me come and collect the boat.
 Damaged my engine in the process
 The claimant must reimburse the additional costs I paid for parts I purchased and the third party mechanics as he
refused to fix the problem or complete the service.
 Pay damages and compensation for loss
 The claimant had my boat for 12 days and didn't achieve anything that was at a satisfactory standard.
 I had to pay another mechanic who diagnosed the fault within 5 minutes. He unlinked the link arm and fixed my
carburettors by tuning them within 15 minutes.
 I was able to use my boat as normal until the new oil pump arrived.
 I spent roughly $2000 on parts and labour when the other Mechanic installed the new oil pump, arm link and serviced
my motor..
 If the claimant can not perform basic mechanical repairs and service after 12 days he should not be allowed to operate
as a licensed servicer.
 The claimant has a duty of care, which was not provided. I am entitled to and would like to be recover the costs I had to
pay the mechanics who actually diagnosed and rectified the engine problems.

Attempts to Resolve the Dispute

From the inception of this case, I have made numerous attempts to negotiate with the claimant to
avoid going through the long Court process.
These attempts included multiple written communications, Offers to compromise, Third party
Mediators and the text message offering $400 asking the claimant to compromise and settle.
Evidence of these attempts, including text messages, Emails, Phone logs along with documented
phone conversations, which have been provided to the court.
Lack of Cooperation from the Claimant
Despite my ongoing efforts, the claimant has demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to engage
in meaningful negotiations or to compromise in any form.
The claimant has also failed to provide any substantive evidence to support his claims or to
justify the continuation of this legal action.
Provision of Evidence
I have consistently provided evidence supporting my position and documenting my attempts to
resolve the dispute.
This includes evidence of a offer made, communications sent, and steps taken to address the
claimant’s concerns. In contrast, the claimant has not provided any factual evidence or
documentation to substantiate his claims against me. I have evidence that proves the claimant is
not to be trusted.
Misdiagnosis and Failure to Complete Services
The claimant misdiagnosed the problem with my boat's engine and held my boat for 12 days
without being able to identify or fix the issue.
Despite claiming that a simple service on the motor typically takes three hours, the claimant did
not complete the service and subsequently refused to fix the motor.
He demanded that I pick up my boat in its unrepaired state and pay $955.
The claimant’s actions are inconsistent with the standards of service provision mandated by
Australian Consumer Law, which requires that services be provided with due care, skill, and
within a reasonable time
Unlawful Detention of Property
The Claimant unlawfully detained my boat by chaining it to a 100L water tank and refused to
release it until I paid the demanded amount.
This coercive action was taken without just cause and constitutes an unlawful exercise of lien.
The claimant also refused to turn the motor on, claiming it was broken, which further
demonstrates his failure to provide the agreed-upon service.
Misuse of the Court System
The claimant's persistent refusal to negotiate and lack of evidence constitute an abuse of the
court process.
Courts have inherent jurisdiction to prevent their processes from being misused, including the
power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious claims.
The claimant’s actions have caused unnecessary delays and wasted judicial resources, which the
court should consider in its determination.
Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
Violations According to the ACL, repairs must be completed within a reasonable time. If not,
consumers are entitled to a replacement, refund, or to have the repairs done elsewhere and
recover the costs from the supplier.
Consumers can also recover damages for any loss or damage.
Services provided must adhere to standards of due care, skill, and technical knowledge, be fit for
any disclosed purpose, completed within a reasonable time, and take all necessary care to avoid
loss or damage.
The claimant’s actions and demands have not complied with these legal requirements, and his
failure to provide evidence or engage in a resolution process further demonstrates his disregard
for these legal standards.
Relief Sought
Respectfully I request that the court: Expedite the resolution of this trial to prevent further
unnecessary strain on my time and resources.
Order the claimant to pay maximum costs and compensation for the undue hardship, time, and
resources expended as a result of his actions.
Use this case as an example to deter similar misuse of the court system, ensuring that such
disrespect and mockery of the civil courts are not tolerated.

Summary of the Material Facts Relevant to the Defence

Initiation and Duration of the Case: The claimant initiated legal proceedings against me almost
three years ago, which have since been ongoing without resolution.
Attempts to Resolve the Dispute:
Prior and Throughout this period, I have made numerous attempts to liaise with the claimant to
reach an amicable resolution and to avoid Court.
These attempts included multiple written communications, offers to compromise, and the
presentation of various settlement proposals.
Claimants Lack of Cooperation: Despite my ongoing efforts, the claimant has consistently
refused to negotiate or compromise, demonstrating a clear unwillingness to settle the matter
outside of court.
Provision of Evidence: I have provided substantial evidence documenting my attempts to
resolve the dispute and my compliance with all procedural requirements.
This evidence has been submitted to the court on multiple occasions.
Claimant's Failure to Provide Consistent Evidence:
The claimant has not only failed to present any substantive evidence to support his claims but has
also provided multiple contradictory statements and Evidence.
His story and facts have changed several times, undermining the credibility of his allegations
and demonstrating an apparent intent to prolong the litigation unnecessarily.
Misdiagnosis and Failure to Complete Services:
The claimant misdiagnosed the problem with my boat’s engine and then retained possession of
my boat for 12 days without being able to identify or to fix the issue.
Despite stating that a simple service on the motor typically takes three hours, the claimant did
not complete the service and subsequently refused to fix the motor. Instead, he demanded that I
pick up my boat in its unrepaired state and pay $955.
Unlawful Detention of Property:
The claimant unlawfully detained my boat by chaining it to a 100L water tank and refused to
release it until I paid the demanded amount.
He also refused to turn the motor on, claiming it was broken.
Impact on the Defendant:
The ongoing nature of this case has caused significant disruption to my life, requiring extensive
time and resources to prepare legal documents, attend court sessions, and research relevant
information.
This has resulted in undue hardship and strain on my personal and professional life.
Australian Consumer Law Context: According to Australian Consumer Law, repairs must be
completed within a reasonable time, and consumers are entitled to remedies such as a
replacement, refund, or the right to have repairs done elsewhere and recover costs.
Additionally, consumers can recover damages for any loss or damage. These laws also mandate
that services be provided with due care, skill, and within a reasonable time.
Claimants Misuse of the Court System:
The claimant’s persistent refusal to resolve the dispute and lack of evidence constitute a misuse
of the court system, effectively mocking the civil justice process.
This has resulted in unnecessary delays and additional costs.
Request for Resolution and Compensation: Given these circumstances, I seek an expedited
resolution of this case and compensation for the undue time, effort, and resources expended due
to the claimant’s actions.
The claimant should be ordered to pay maximum costs and compensation to deter similar misuse
of the court system in the future.
Legal Basis of the Defence and Counterclaim Defence
a. Lack of Evidence from the Claimant:
The claimant has failed to provide any substantive evidence to support his claims against
me.
Under the principles of civil procedure, the burden of proof lies with the claimant to
substantiate his allegations with credible evidence.
The claimant’s inability to present factual evidence undermines the validity of his claims
and demonstrates that the case lacks merit
b. Efforts to Resolve the Dispute:
I have consistently acted in good faith by attempting to resolve the dispute amicably
through multiple offers of compromise and settlement. These efforts are documented and
have been submitted as evidence to the court. Under common law principles, good faith
efforts to settle disputes are taken into account by the court. The claimant’s refusal to
engage in negotiations shows a disregard for these principles.
Claimant's Misdiagnosis and Failure to Provide Services:
claimant misdiagnosed the problem with my boat's engine and held my boat for 12 days
without being able to identify or fix the issue.
Despite claiming that a simple service on the motor typically takes three hours, the
claimant did not complete the service and subsequently refused to fix the motor. He
demanded that I pick up my boat in its unrepaired state and pay $955.

The claimant’s actions are inconsistent with the standards of service provision mandated
by Australian Consumer Law, which requires that services be provided with due care,
skill, and within a reasonable time.
c. Unlawful Detention of Property:
The claimant unlawfully detained my boat by chaining it to a 100L water tank and
refused to release it until I paid the demanded amount.
This coercive action was taken without just cause and constitutes an unlawful exercise of
lien.
 The claimant also refused to turn the motor on, falsely claiming it was broken, which
further demonstrates his failure to provide the agreed-upon service.
d. Misuse of the Court System:
The claimant's persistent refusal to negotiate and lack of evidence constitute an abuse of
the court process. Courts have inherent jurisdiction to prevent their processes from being
misused, including the power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious claims.
The claimant’s actions have caused unnecessary delays and wasted judicial resources,
which the court should consider in its determination.
e. Contradictory Evidence and Changing Story:
The claimant has provided multiple contradictory statements throughout the course of
this case.
His story has changed several times, which undermines the credibility of his allegations
and demonstrates a lack of consistent and reliable evidence.
The claimant's changing narrative further highlights his intent to misuse the court system
and prolong the litigation without merit.
f. False and Defamatory Statements: The claimant has falsely accused me of being
verbally aggressive, and verbally and almost physically abusive. These accusations are
untrue and defamatory, intended to damage my reputation without any basis in fact.
Additionally, the claimant has contradicted himself by stating that I refused to attend the
workshop, which is inconsistent with his other claims and further undermines his
credibility.
g. Australian Consumer Law (ACL) Violations:
According to the ACL, repairs must be completed within a reasonable time. If not,
consumers are entitled to a replacement, refund, or to have the repairs done elsewhere
and recover the costs from the supplier. Consumers can also recover damages for any loss
or damage.
Services provided must adhere to standards of due care, skill, and technical knowledge,
be fit for any disclosed purpose, completed within a reasonable time, and take all
necessary care to avoid loss or damage.
The claimant’s actions and demands have not complied with these legal requirements,
and his failure to provide evidence or engage in a resolution process further demonstrates
his disregard for these legal standards.

Counterclaim:
Compensation for Time and Resources Expended:
Under Australian Consumer Law, consumers are entitled to recover damages for any loss or
damage caused by the supplier's failure to meet statutory guarantees. The claimant's actions have
caused significant loss and damage to me in the form of time, resources, and stress.
 I seek compensation for the undue time and effort expended in responding to this baseless claim,
including the costs of legal fees, document preparation, and court appearances.
b.. Deterrence Against Abuse of Legal Process:
The court has the authority to impose costs and other sanctions to deter parties from abusing the
legal process. Given the claimant’s repeated and intentional misuse of the court system, it is
appropriate to award maximum costs and compensation to discourage such behavior in the
future.
This case should serve as an example to others that frivolous and vexatious litigation will not be
tolerated and will have financial consequences.
c. Relief from Defamatory Statements:
I seek damages for the false and defamatory statements made by the claimant, which have
harmed my reputation and caused personal distress. The claimant's unfounded accusations of
verbal and almost physical abuse are particularly damaging and should be addressed by the
court.
The claimant’s contradictory statements about my refusal to attend the workshop further
illustrate his unreliable and defamatory behavior.
d. Request for Expedited Resolution:
I request that the court expedite the resolution of this matter to prevent further unnecessary strain
on my personal and professional life. This is in line with the principles of justice and efficiency
in the judicial process.
Details of Parties Alleged to be Liable for the Counterclaim and the Grounds Upon Which
the Allegations Are Based
1. Claimant: Kimberly Watts
Grounds for Allegation:
Misdiagnosis and Incomplete Service: The claimant misdiagnosed the problem with the engine
of my boat and retained possession of the boat for 12 days without identifying or fixing the issue.
Despite stating that a simple service typically takes three hours, the claimant did not complete
the service and refused to fix the motor, instead demanding $955 for the uncompleted service.
Unlawful Detention of Property: The claimant unlawfully detained my boat by chaining it to a
100L water tank and refusing to release it until payment was made. This act of coercion
constitutes an unlawful exercise of lien.
False and Defamatory Statements: The claimant made untrue and defamatory statements,
accusing me of being verbally aggressive and almost physically abusive. These false accusations
were intended to damage my reputation and are without any factual basis.
Failure to Provide Consistent Evidence: The claimant has presented multiple contradictory
statements and changed his story several times, undermining the credibility of his claims and
demonstrating an intent to misuse the court system.
Violation of Australian Consumer Law (ACL): The claimant’s actions violate ACL provisions,
which mandate that services be provided with due care, skill, and within a reasonable time. The
claimant’s failure to meet these standards entitles me to remedies including compensation for
losses and damages incurred.
2. Exmouth Service and Towing:
Exmouth Repco
Grounds for Allegation:
Vicarious Liability: The business, as the employer or principal, is vicariously liable for the
actions of the claimant (assuming the claimant is an employee or representative). The business is
responsible for ensuring that its employees provide services with due care and skill, comply with
ACL requirements, and refrain from making defamatory statements.
Failure to Provide Adequate Training and Supervision:
The business failed to ensure that the claimant had the necessary training and supervision to
properly diagnose and repair my boat’s engine. This failure contributed to the misdiagnosis,
incomplete service, and subsequent unlawful detention of my property.
Negligence in Business Practices: The business’s negligence in its practices and procedures led
to the claimant’s actions that caused me financial loss, emotional distress, and damage to my
reputation. As such, the business shares liability for the damages I am claiming.
Sought Dismissal of the Claim
I respectfully request that the court dismiss the claimant's allegations in their entirety due to the
lack of substantive evidence, contradictory statements, and failure to meet the required standards
of service as mandated by Australian Consumer Law (ACL).Compensation for Financial
Losses:I seek compensation for the financial losses incurred as a result of the claimant's actions,
including but not limited to:The $955 demanded for incomplete and ineffective services.Costs
associated with retrieving my boat and having the necessary repairs completed elsewhere.
Damage for Emotional Distress and Defamation:I seek damages for the emotional distress
caused by the claimant's false and defamatory statements, which accused me of being verbally
aggressive and almost physically abusive. These defamatory statements have caused significant
harm to my reputation and personal wellbeing
Compensation for Time and Resources Expended
I seek compensation for the undue time, effort, and resources expended in preparing for this case,
including: Court fees, Time spent preparing documents, attending court, and researching
relevant information.Any additional costs directly related to defending against the claimant's
baseless allegations.
Order for Expedited Resolution:I request that the court expedite the resolution of this case to
prevent further unnecessary strain on my personal and professional life, ensuring that justice is
served in a timely manner.

 Determine Against Abuse of Legal Process:I request that the court order the claimant to
pay maximum costs and compensation as a deterrent against future misuse of the court
system, demonstrating that frivolous and vexatious litigation will not be tolerated.
 Grounds for Remedies:Failure
 to Provide Services with Due Care and Skill: As per ACL, the claimant failed to perform
the agreed-upon services with due care and skill, leading to financial loss and additional
Detention Detention of Property: The claimant unlawfully detained my boat, causing
further inconvenience and financial burden.
Defamatory Statements: claimant's false and defamatory statements have caused
significant emotional distress and damage to my Resolve reputation.
Good Faith Efforts to the Dispute: Despite my numerous attempts to resolve the matter
amicably, the claimant's refusal to negotiate has prolonged the dispute unnecessarily,
justifying compensation for the time and resources I have eexpended
This remedy request comprehensively addresses the compensation you seek for the various
harms and losses caused by the claimant, as well as measures to prevent further misuse of the
legal process.