FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Costs of Remitter) [2025] FCA 891
File number(s): NSD 724 of 2016 Judgment of: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 4 August 2025 Catchwords: COSTS – representative proceedings – where the High Court remitted to the primary judge the question of the applicant’s damages for redetermination – costs orders in respect of the remitter Cases cited: Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Number of paragraphs: 3 Date of last submission/s: 25 July 2025 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Applicant: Dr F Roughley SC with Mr S Gerber Solicitor for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Costello KC with Mr J Waller Solicitor for the Respondent: Allens ORDERS
NSD 724 of 2016 BETWEEN: BILJANA CAPIC
Applicant
AND: FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 004 116 223
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Each party is to bear their own costs of the remitter.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J
In Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715, I determined that Ms Capic had paid $6,820.91 more for her vehicle than it was worth. Appellate litigation in the Full Court and the High Court ensued following which the High Court remitted the matter to me to determine how much Ms Capic’s reduction in damages should be in light of its reasons.
At the hearing Ms Capic submitted that she should be awarded a substantially larger amount than the original $6,820.91 I had determined and Ford submitted that there should be a substantial reduction. I determined that her reduction in damages should be assessed at $6,820.91, i.e, the same as original amount. Neither party obtained the result which they sought. Ms Capic now submits that it was Ford who sought on appeal to disturb the original figure and that the outcome showed that it had lost that campaign.
However, the question of who won and who lost the appellate litigation has been determined and is not the debate I had to resolve. On the debate before me Ms Capic failed to get what she wanted as did Ford. The appropriate order is that each party bear their own costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate:
Dated: 4 August 2025
- AGLC
- Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Costs of Remitter) [2025] FCA 891
- Case
- [2025] FCA 891
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the allocation of costs in relation to the remitter. Specifically, the court needed to determine the costs incurred by each party during the remitter process. This included the costs incurred by the applicant during the original proceedings and the subsequent costs incurred by both parties during the remitter process.
The court considered the principles of costs in representative proceedings, focusing on the equitable allocation of costs between the parties. It determined that each party should bear their own costs associated with the remitter, reflecting the unique circumstances and efforts of each party during this phase of the proceedings. This approach ensured that the financial burden was not disproportionately placed on one party, maintaining fairness and balance in the litigation process.
The final orders of the court mandated that each party would bear their own costs of the remitter, reflecting the court’s determination on the equitable allocation of costs. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders concerning costs in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Each party is to bear their own costs of the remitter.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.