Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd

Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd concerned claims by Ms Capic against Ford regarding the quality of transmissions in 73,451 vehicles supplied in Australia. Ms Capic alleged that the transmissions were non-compliant with the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) due to component and architectural deficiencies. Ms Capic sought damages for herself and on behalf of a class of vehicle owners under ACL s 271(1). The court considered whether s 271(1) confers a single cause of action where goods have multiple features that independently constitute non-compliance with s 54, and whether Ford's replacement of failed components under warranty and the timing of repairs affected the entitlement to damages.

The court found that Ford's defence under ACL s 271(6) was not a part of the cause of action but rather a defence, and that the section was not enlivened where the consumer had not required the manufacturer to repair the goods. The court also found that the onus was on Ford to establish the effectiveness of the replacements and that the late repairs did not affect the entitlement to damages as Ms Capic did not bear the onus in relation to s 271(2). The court further found that there was no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct based on implied representations arising from the marketing of the vehicles, and that the evidence from the 52 group members was not sufficiently representative to be probative.

The court revoked the direction relating to Ms Capic's tender list to the extent it applied to certain documents, removed those documents from the 'Admitted Into Evidence' section of the electronic Court Book, and stood the matter over for further case management. The parties were directed not to deliver written submissions in advance of the case management hearing.