Tesla justified its position by the risk posed by damaged high-voltage batteries.
In rare cases, a damaged battery could cause a catastrophic fire. Internal damage to battery cells could sometimes be difficult to detect, it said.
With the vehicles unable to be charged quickly, Goodricke was unhappy at the prospect of having to plug the cars into a regular powerpoint at home, which could take “days”.
He went to the Disputes Tribunal, which dismissed his claim over alleged breaches of consumer and fair trade laws. He sought a second rehearing against the tribunal’s decision but that too was dismissed.
Goodricke then went to the High Court, which has dismissed his application for a judicial review of the tribunal’s decisions.
In doing so, Justice David Boldt acknowledged the case had one “immediately troubling aspect to it”.
“Tesla, unlike most car manufacturers, retains the ability to reach into individual vehicles long after their sale and make alterations which limit their functionality.
“That power is remarkable and may be exercised only in the most tightly constrained circumstances.”
However, he was not persuaded the tribunal referee erred in rejecting Goodricke’s claim.
Written off, revived, disabled
Goodricke, an electrical engineer, bought the cars in 2024.
Each had been deregistered after being written off by their former owners’ insurers.
Tesla became aware a salvaged Tesla Model 3 was being sold at auction. A few days later, it learned the New Zealand Transport Agency register listed the vehicle as structurally damaged.
Tesla designated it an “unsupported vehicle” and transmitted an “over-the-air” update to disable fast-charging capability.
It did the same a few days later on the second vehicle under its “unsupported vehicle policy”, which prevented a Tesla from being charged on a direct current or supercharger system.
The Teslas were repaired, inspected and re-registered.
The vehicles charged normally when Goodricke accessed them using only his key.
But the software updates downloaded when Goodricke used the Tesla app, immediately disabling the vehicles’ access to any fast-charging network, including Tesla’s proprietary network of “superchargers”.
Justice Boldt said that for most vehicles, re-registration would have been the end of the story.
However, in this case, Tesla New Zealand had been monitoring the NZTA register.
Goodricke wrote to Tesla protesting that it had interfered with his vehicles without his permission.
Tesla pointed him to its website and unsupported vehicle policy, which defined a vehicle as one the company considered unsafe for service or fast-charging.
Goodricke argued in the tribunal that Tesla had breached consumer and trade laws by sending updates that reduced his cars’ functionality.
He claimed Tesla’s failure to disclose the risk of remote disabling before he bought the car had misled him about the vehicles’ ongoing functionality.
Justice David Boldt said in dismissing the case it had one “immediately troubling aspect to it”. Photo/ George Heard
He said it was “unconscionable for Tesla” to require an inspection only it could perform, and which cost more than $1600.
Tesla NZ general service manager Michael Belenkij said if the test showed the car was safe, the functionality was turned back on.
The claim was dismissed in September last year when the tribunal ruled for Tesla.
The referee found the company’s policy was not misleading, deceptive or unconscionable.
He noted it was publicly available and the onus was on Goodricke, as purchaser of a damaged vehicle, to satisfy himself of the potential implications of buying a car that had been deregistered.
The tribunal said Tesla had a legitimate interest in ensuring its cars were safe.
Goodricke applied for a rehearing focused on the tribunal’s alleged failures, but that too was dismissed.
When the matter reached the High Court, Justice Boldt noted Goodricke had not been legally represented at any stage.
Goodricke raised multiple grounds of review challenging the merits of the tribunal’s decision.
He also argued Tesla had unlawfully interfered with his property and committed an act of trespass.
Justice Boldt said the fundamental rule that a car belonged to its owner, who then assumed responsibility for its safe operation, could only be displaced if there was a clear legal basis to do so.
Tesla acknowledges boundaries
Tesla, through its lawyer, acknowledged it had no unilateral right to alter the functionality of a Tesla vehicle once it belonged to someone else, and that it must be able to point to a lawful entitlement to do so.
The judge said Goodricke’s case depended on his proposition that Tesla publicly maintained that its vehicles would have access to fast-charging networks throughout their working lives, but that proposition was incorrect.
He said whatever Tesla may say about its vehicles’ general suitability for fast-charging, it made a clear exception for damaged and deregistered vehicles.
NZME has sought comment from Goodricke.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.