A judge was wrong to find that Mazda’s treatment of customers with faulty vehicles was appalling but not unconscionable, and nowhere in his ruling is there an explanation for the distinction, the consumer regulator has told an appeals court.

Subscribe for instant access to all Lawyerly content.

Already a subscriber?
Lost your password?

Want to test drive Lawyerly? Contact us to take a free trial.

For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au