A label on the car's front windshield said its fuel consumption was 9 litres per 100 kilometres when driving in the city, 6.8 litres on country roads, and 7.6 litres per 100 kilometres for a "combined test". "Actual fuel consumption and CO2 emissions depend on factors such as traffic conditions, vehicle condition and how you drive," a disclaimer on the sticker said. However, Mr Begovic realised he was chewing through much more fuel than the sticker claimed, and kept 19 petrol receipts taken between January 2017 and May 2018 showing as much. He took the car into the dealership three times in 2017 and then to a separate Mitsubishi dealer in 2018 asking for its fuel consumption to be checked, but no fault was found. Three joint tests by Mr Begovic and Mitsubishi later in 2018 neither proved nor disproved the fuel sticker was inaccurate, VCAT said, though the tribunal found the tests showed the sticker results couldn't be reproduced "on-road".

Senior tribunal member Leneen Forde agreed with evidence from ABMARC engineering director Andrea Winkelmann, whose report for Mr Begovic found the Triton was using 26.7 per cent more petrol than the sticker claimed. Mitsubishi argued her report shouldn't be relied on because it used testing not required under regulations, but the company provided no expert evidence to challenge her findings. The manufacturer said there were testing methods, accepted under regulations, that could lead to more attractive results and said this accounted for the discrepancy. But Ms Winklemann gave evidence, which the tribunal accepted, that this could not account for a discrepancy as large as 26.7 per cent. "I conclude that the label was misleading and deceptive for the vehicle. My finding is limited to the vehicle subject of these proceedings," the judgment says.

"I find that both the dealer and the manufacturer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct." While VCAT found the sticker was misleading, it did not rule that the car was defective. In a statement, Mitsubishi Motors Australia said it "strongly disagree[s]" with the findings. Mitsubishi said the tribunal took into account a different testing methodology than the standard outlined on the fuel sticker and said the results were "incomparable". "The testing used different standards to achieve a result, including vehicle load, fuel quality standard and the tests were outside laboratory conditions as they utilised portable testing equipment," the statement said.