Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Initial Trial)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Williams and others filed a class action against Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (TMCA) over defective diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems in 264,170 vehicles sold in Australia. The plaintiffs argued that the DPF systems were defective, causing issues such as the emission of foul-smelling white smoke and the display of excessive DPF notifications, impacting the vehicles' acceptable quality under section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The case raised questions about the applicability of the guarantee of acceptable quality to both first and second-hand purchasers and those who had received an effective countermeasure introduced in 2020. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed misleading and deceptive conduct under sections 18, 29, and 33 of the ACL, as well as individual claims for reduction in value loss and other reasonably foreseeable losses under section 272(1)(b) of the ACL.

The court had to decide whether the guarantee in section 54 of the ACL applied to both first and second-hand purchasers, and if it applied to those who had received the effective countermeasure introduced in 2020. The court also had to consider whether the representations concerning the vehicles were misleading or deceptive under sections 18, 29, and 33 of the ACL. Furthermore, the court had to determine the proper construction of section 272(1)(a) and (b) of the ACL regarding reduction in value damages and other reasonably foreseeable losses, as well as the appropriate method for calculating such damages in a class action setting.

The court found that the guarantee of acceptable quality under section 54 of the ACL applied to both first and second-hand purchasers, as well as to those who had received the effective countermeasure introduced in 2020. The court held that the DPF systems were defective, and the representations concerning the vehicles were misleading or deceptive under sections 18, 29, and 33 of the ACL. The court determined that a 17.5% reduction in value was appropriate for the affected vehicles. The court also held that damages for reduction in value and other reasonably foreseeable losses could be awarded on an aggregate basis under section 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and that the common law duty to mitigate had no role to play in an action for compensation under statute.

The court ordered that the parties provide an agreed minute or competing minutes of order to the Associate to Justice Lee by 5pm on 19 April 2022. The proceeding was to be adjourned part heard for the purpose of making and entering final orders at 10.15am on 22 April 2022.