Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Capic from a decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the interpretation of section 139 of the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) (CCA). The dispute arose from allegations that Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Ford) engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which is Schedule 2 to the CCA. Capic sought to recover damages for losses allegedly suffered as a result of Ford's conduct.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 139 of the CCA, which provides for the recovery of damages for loss or damage suffered by reason of conduct that contravenes a provision of the ACL, required a plaintiff to prove that the contravening conduct was the sole cause of their loss, or whether it was sufficient to prove that the conduct was a cause of the loss. This question involved an examination of the causal nexus required between the contravening conduct and the loss or damage claimed.

The High Court unanimously held that section 139(1) of the CCA does not require a plaintiff to prove that the contravening conduct was the sole cause of their loss or damage. Instead, it requires proof that the contravening conduct was a cause of the loss or damage. The Court reasoned that the language of section 139(1) uses the phrase "by reason of," which signifies a causal connection, and that the ordinary meaning of such language in a statutory context does not impose a sole cause requirement. The Court affirmed that where a contravening conduct is one of multiple causes of loss, a plaintiff can recover damages for the loss caused by that conduct.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Full Federal Court, and remitted the proceeding to the Federal Court of Australia for determination of the quantum of damages in accordance with the reasons of the High Court.